Museado / NARA Collection rn-ret — Collection rn-ret
Recent Folios
Login Register
English (inglés) español magyar (húngaro) हिन्दी (hindi)

Survos folio page chat

WHSF: Contested, 26-3

Ask the Scholar

Page 1 of 1
I can add historical knowledge about this page.

Page image

Page 1

OCR

Richard Nixon Presidential Library Contested Materials Collection Folder List Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 9/15/1971 White House Staff Memo From Jeb Magruder to Gordon Strachan. RE: An attached copy of Max Fisher's memo to the Attorney General. 1 pg. 26 3 8/16/1971 Campaign Letter From Max Fisher to John Mitchell. RE: The support of the Jewish community in the 1972 campaign. 6 pgs. 26 3 White House Staff Other Document Indecipherable handwritten note dated 9/11. 1 pg. 26 3 9/8/1971 Campaign Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Florida Primary. 1 pg. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 1 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 9/8/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Young People on State Committees. 1 pg. 26 3 9/8/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: RNC Research Program. 1 pg. 26 3 9/3/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Thomas B. Evans Jr. to John Mitchell. RE: An attached outline that provides information on the uses of the redistricting base file. 8 pgs. 26 3 8/31/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Lee Edwards, an organizer who runs several public relations projects for conservative groups. 2 pgs. 26 3 Domestic Policy Newsletter An article from the United Press International entitled, "FBI Friends Lack Pals in Tax Service." 1 pg. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 2 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 9/2/1971 Campaign Memo From Ken Rietz to Jeb Magruder. RE: New Voter Day at Winrock. 2 pgs. 26 3 9/2/1971 Campaign Memo From Ed Harper to Jamie McLane. RE: Salute to the Young Voter Speech. 1 pg. 26 3 Campaign Report A report entitled, "Salute To the New Voter: Information for Introduction." 2 pgs. 26 3 8/28/1971 Campaign Other Document A typed telegram from the President addressing the "Salute To the Young Voters" in Pettyjean Mountain, Arkansas. 5 pgs. 26 3 9/8/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Georg Babbe's attached resume, and his possible selection as the new Campaign Manager in California. 3 pgs. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 3 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 9/9/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: An attached report by David A. Keene on the the YAF convention. 1 pg. 26 3 9/8/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: The YAF Convention. 3 pgs. 26 3 9/1/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The continued use of Bill Timmons as the head of the convention activities. 1 pg. 26 3 9/9/1971 Domestic Policy Letter From Ken Cole to Haldeman. RE: An attached memo from Bill Timmons recommending that John Rhodes be appointed the Chairman of the Platform Committee for the '72 Republican National Convention. 1 pg. 26 3 9/8/1971 Campaign Memo From William Timmons to John Ehrlichman. RE: The 1972 Convention. 2 pgs. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 4 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 9/8/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From William Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The '72 Convention Appointments. 13 pgs. 26 3 9/1/1971 Campaign Memo From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The '72 Convention, and an enclosed memo from Bill Timmons concerning hotel accommodations, transportation, and seating for major officials in the Administration. 1 pg. 26 3 8/30/1971 Campaign Memo From William E. Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The 1972 Convention, and a head count of the number of subcabinet and agency heads in attendence. 3 pgs. 26 3 9/8/1971 Campaign Memo From Harry Dent to The Attorney General and Haldeman. RE: The Kentucky Governor's Race. 2 pgs. 26 3 11/2/1971 Campaign Report A detailed analysis of the gubernatorial race in Kentucky. 4 pgs. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 5 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 8/26/1971 Campaign Letter Unknown sender to John Kerr. RE: Thoughts concerning the public opinion survey conducted in Kentucky during the week of August 15. 4 pgs. 26 3 9/3/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Harry Dent to Haldeman. RE: The "good play" that was received from the Kissinger briefing for the Billy Graham group. 1 pg. 26 3 8/12/1971 Domestic Policy Newsletter An article from the Baptist Press. RE: The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, and impending changes about to be made. 1 pg. 26 3 8/12/1971 Foreign Policy Newsletter An article from the Baptist Press entitled, "30 Religious Leaders Briefed by White House on Red China." 1 pg. 26 3 8/13/1971 Foreign Policy Newsletter An article from the Religious News Service entitled, "Southern Baptist Leader Reports on White House China Briefing." 1 pg. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 6 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 9/14/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Charles Colson to Haldeman. RE: The Monitoring of Democrats. 1 pg. 26 3 8/30/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Thomas B. Evans to Haldeman. RE: The attached summary and analysis of the Delaware poll. 23 pgs. 26 3 White House Staff Memo From L. Higby to Strachan. RE: Message that reads: "Ok, I don't believe he could pay him $29,000. What does Jeb make?" 1 pg. 26 3 White House Staff Memo From Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE: Different assignments of cabinet members such as: "Rob Odle handles office management." 1 pg. 26 3 9/15/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: Magruder's Administrative Assistant. 1 pg. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 7 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 Personal Other Document The resume of Robert L. Herrema, and the employment history which includes: The U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and a position at The George Washington University in Washington D.C. 3 pgs. 26 3 9/9/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Jeb Magruder to The Attorney General. RE: An attached report from David A. Keene on the YAP convention. 1 pg. 26 3 9/8/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: YAF Convention. 2 pgs. 26 3 White House Staff Other Document Indecipherable handwritten note dated 9/14. 1 pg. 26 3 9/14/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Stephen Bull to Dwight Chapin. RE: Scheduling of Senator Goldwater and Other Surrogate Candidates. 7 pgs. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 8 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 8/16/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Andrew Glass/National Journal Article on Polling. 2 pgs. 26 3 8/14/1971 Campaign Newspaper An article in the National Journal written by Andrew J. Glass entitled: "Political Report/Pollsters Prowl Nation as Candidates Use Opinion Surveys to Plan '72 Campaign." 14 pgs. 26 3 8/3/1971 Domestic Policy Memo From Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. 26 3 8/16/1971 Campaign Letter From Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter commenting on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. 1 pg. 26 3 8/16/1971 Campaign Letter From Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter of August 10, where he comments on the lack of "official cooperation." *Document repeated six times. 6 pgs. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 9 of 10 Box Number Folder Number Document Date No Date Subject Document Type Document Description 26 3 Personal Other Document An addressed envelope to Andrew Glass, editor at National Journal. 1 pg. 26 3 8/10/1971 Personal Letter From Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' offense at being "slighted" by Gordon Strachan when trying to get information for his article in the National Journal. 1 pg. 26 3 8/3/1971 Campaign Memo From Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: The National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. 26 3 8/10/1971 Personal Letter From Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' complaint of Gordon Strachan's treatment of him as a member of the press. 1 pg. Wednesday, June 22, 2011 Page 10 of 10 Presidential Materials Review Board Review on Contested Documents Collection: H. R. Haldeman Box Number: 305 Folder: 6 Campaign - Aug 13, Sept 17, Sept 18, 1971 [1 of 2] Document Disposition 47 Retain Open 48 Retain Open 49 Return Private/Political Note, Magruder to Strachan, 9-15-71 Private/Political Notes, " Jsm...." 11 50 Return 9-11-[71] 51 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 9-8-71 52 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the AG, 9-8-71 53 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 9-8-71 54 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 8-31-71 55 Return Private/Political Memo, Rietz to Magruder, 9-2-71 56 Return Private/Political Memo Magruder to the AG, 9-8-71 57 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the AG, 9-9-71 58 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 9-1-71 59 Return Private/Political Memo, Cole to HRH, 9-9-71 60 Return Private/Political Memo Magruder to the AG, 9-1-71 61 Return Private/Political Memo, Dent to the AG & HRH, 9-8-71 62 Return Private/Political Memo, Dent to HRH, 9-3-71 63 Return Private/Political Memo, Colson to HRH, 9-14-71 64 Return Private/Political Memo, Evans to HRH, 8-30-71 65 Return Private/Political Note, Higby to Strachan, n.d. 66 Return Private/Political Memo, Magruder to the AG, 9.9.71 67 Return Private/Political Notes. "Chapin, cwc, S.Bull, JSM," 9-14[7]] 68 Return Private/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 8-16-71 CITIZENS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT September 15, 1971 FOR: GORDON STRACHAN FROM: JEB MAGRUDER Attached is a copy of Max Fisher's memorandum to the Attorney General on the Jewish Community. Note that Larry Goldberg will be joining the staff October 1 to work in this general area. Attachment & : MAX M. FISHER 2210 FISHER BUILDING DETROIT, MICHIGAN 48202 August 16, 1971 The Honorable John Mitchell Attorney-General Justice Department Washington, D.C. Re: Jewish Community Dear John: It is my feeling that a swing could be made in the voting pattern of the Jewish Community in the 1972 campaign, if we understand the basic issues and we start organizing now on a low key basis. If you recall, the polls showed that the Jewish vote was about 21% for President Nixon. It is my feeling there can be a very distinct switch of 10% in the upcoming election of 1972. I have outlined what I consider the basic issues concerning the Jewish community from my own experiences and contacts with a broad spectrum throughout the whole country. The issues of primary concern are as follows: BASIC ISSUES (1) Israel. If there is one thing that the Jewish community is united on it is the preservation and security and viability of Israel. (2) Economic Policies: Because of their predominance in the industrial and financial world, the economic situation in the country is of great concern. I might mention that from a survey of leaders in this area, I find a strong, strong tendency towards some sort of controls, plus a stimulation of the economy through investment tax credits, as well as an adequate money supply to keep such industries as housing moving. This is now part of the President's policy. The Honorable John Mitchell August 16, 1971 Page Two I have lumped together the next four issues, because various sectors of the community have very strong, positive feelings about each of them: (1) Law and Order: There is a strong feeling on this issue among the Orthodox and Conservative members of our community. Among these groups, of course, are large numbers who live in proximity to other minority groups. You will find this true particularly in the large cities where the population has not been able to move about because of lower income status and of age limitations. They have suffered considerably from the effect of high crime and violence in these areas. To them the safety of an area is a very, very important item. (2) Soviet Jewry: There is a great emotional response throughout the country on this issue, and it is interesting that this is one of the great issues of the youth. They feel that the intolerance of the Russian government with the Jewish minority is not right, and that all efforts should be made to give them every opportunity to freely emigrate. The President has a very deep understanding of this problem, as I have discussed it with him on a previous occasion. Along this line, the matter of the Yiddish broadcasting in Soviet Russia by Radio Free Europe is a very important issue. In addition, a substitute for the Koch Bill, which would be a statement by the Department of Justice and the State Department, allowing entry into the U.S. I understand this was done in the case of Cuba. The next issue has become very controversial. Its early resolve would be helpful. (3) Civil Rights: The Jewish community has been in the forefront of civil rights, but I find in this particular issue there has been a dropping down in the matter of priorities, and this is probably more important among the Reformed Jewish community and some of the college youth and faculty. There is no question that even in a liberal oriented Jewish community that this no longer stands as high on the priority list as it previously did. (4) Urban problems and welfare reform. The Honorable John Mitchell August 16, 1971 Page Three In conclusion, bearing in mind these priorities, one can structure an approach to the Jewish community which could be very meaningful. STAFFING I think it highly important that a staff be set up along the following lines: One full time man in Washington, who has a thorough knowledge and understanding of Jewish community life. I have in mind someone in the 30's or 40's, who has had experience in leadership in his own community, who also understands the pluralistic nature of the Jewish community as it relates to its high degree of organization life. The community, I believe, is over-organized with many organizations, but this is a fact of life and one must recognize it, though one must not be taken in by the claims of organization as to the control of constituency. For example, B'nai B'rith may say they have a million members they control. They may have one million members, but they hardly control the votes, but having their help can be very constructive, especially among their leadership. As far as staff is concerned, I have a couple of candidates in mind. One of them is a very active Republican from Providence, Rhode Iland, Lawrence Goldberg, who has good credentials and who has wanted to get into government. There are one or two others who may be needed before we get through. I believe the involvement at the beginning this person could make with all the larger communities and organizations throughout the country is important. I have another man who would be a great addition. I have mentioned previously Mr. Albert Adelman of Milwaukee, who has great credentials all through the major cities in the country because of his involvement and leadership in many of the organizations and who also is a life-long Republican. I believe we could make a deal with Ollie to spend considerable time on this, as he has a definite interest to get into foreign service or in Washington life, as he has sold his business and has a desire to do something else. I mention this man to you, because I have talked with him several times, and I believe that after meeting with both of us, we can get him on board. The Honorable John Mitchell August 16, 1971 Page Four These men would be of help in establishing various contacts throughout the country, at the beginning, and would help me in bringing a representative group of leadership into Washington for our meeting. Next, I would like to bring to Washington a group of 30 to 40 outstanding men who would form the nucleus of our committee. This leadership would have the opportunity to meet with the President -- along the lines of our meeting in 1968. In addition, I think one or two other meetings might be necessary with you, which could be very helpful. COMMUNICATIONS We have to make plans to be able to communicate to the rank and file of the country what the President has done as far as Israel is concerned. Though a broad section of the leadership knows of his deep interest and involvement, this has not filtered down to the rank and file, and I believe the following procedures are necessary: (1) That a man with broad experience in the Jewish media be made available, and I have a man in mind for this, who woul d do the following: a. Using a systematic approach to the Anglo-Jewish Press, see that proper information is carried on the issues involved through the news or editorial section. In a very limited way, I have been able to make my views known, and they have been broadly interpreted, but this has to be followed up on a more systematic basis. b. There are lists available of all the Rabbis, prominent men, etc. at the White House and the Republican National headquarters, which should be used as a basis for some letters written by myself on the above issues, starting immediately. This list must be updated with opinion makers and leaders from the various communities. Along this line, our staff should be assembling large numbers of lists from the various organizations for future mailings. The Honorable John Mitchell August 16, 1971 Page Five This kind of operation has to be started as soon as possible, because it will be much more effective than it would be if we had a crash program just a few months before the election. One of the things I have tried to do very carefully in my relations with organizations and leadership of the communities (and I might mention that I make almost 40 or 50 appearances a year before some of these organizations) is to be as factual as possible without being apolitical. The fact that I have been able to do this is evidenced by a great deal of newspaper coverage that I have received from the Jewish press, which makes me believe that we have built a base from which we can become political. I might mention also that all of this work would be coordinated with the Republican Party, so as to obtain the maximum amount of leader- ship in the various communities. Also, we have today statements and information from various Israeli leaders, praising President Nixon, and we would have to research all the available information on this to be used in our communications. I have some of this, but we need much more, and this is available. One of the greatest opportunities we will have is on the matter of publicizing the assistance Israel receives in credits, grants and arms, when these issues are clarified in the near future. It will then be necessary to move in real depth in communicating to people throughout the country. Next, it is highly important that the President make an early decision about the meeting on November 13 in Pittsburgh. Besides the leadership of the communities, the President of every major organization will be there. I, personally, have solicited their attendance, and they have agreed to attend, though no one knows of the possibility of the President being there. This could be a very important stimulus, as it would be the only meeting of the Jewish community the President has addressed since his Inaugural. John, we have an opportunity, knowing what the basic issues are in the community, of setting up an organization and communications network promptly, and I believe it can make a very meaningful impact on what we are trying to accomplish. The Honorable John Mitchell August 16, 1971 Page Six In addition, I believe a fund-raising activity, which would be part of the general fund-raising activity, could be developed. I would agree to organize this, but it should be part of the regular structure and not on an ethnic basis. We would be able to enlist people for the overall effort from the leadership group we would assemble, and as far as the large contributors, I'm afraid this will have to be my responsibility. What it would mean is the following: One full-time staff man; one part-time non-paid man; one man on communications. I am prepared to move on this, but would like to have your comments. Kindest personal regards, may 9/11 J8m 1 sunog candy D.C/Ball Spollesman Resource man 2 max Fisher - gewish operation. therry Goldberg Σ into committee LLR.I 3 Pol Mty -welk by mon. 4 AG -breakfast mtg 10/2 in LA all Cal YAF poe personalities in 1 room 5 6 Brochure - -print TO AN UNG September 8, 1971 1 6-102 By 3 24-82 y CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: Florida Primary I discussed with Congressman Frey the opportunity to keep agrees McCloskey's name off the ballot for the Florida primary. Frey feels it would be a PR mistake for us to do that because he feels strongly that we will win handily and it would be much more effective if we win against McCloskey rather than if we are running against ourselves. Of more concern is probably the Democratic side of that primary in that if we assume it is to our advantage to have Jackson win in Florida to offset Muskie's predicted New Hampshire win, we maybe should consider whether there is anything we can do to keep Wallace off the Democratic ballot. Frey feels that in a race between Lindsay, Muskie, and Jackson, Jackson would who whereas, with the addition of Wallace Muskie's chances increase greatly. Two wins in a row that early could be very helpful to Muskie. Would you like me to pursue this subject further? Yes X No Comment bcc: Mr. Haldeman JEB S. MAGRUDER CONFIDENTIAL+ DETERMINE AN September 8, 1971 ADMIN KING 0-102 By 22 3-24-82 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: Young People on State Committees Mr. Haldeman has suggested that we consider placing a high percent- age of young, responsible people under the age of 30 on our various state committees. Evidentially, he feels these young people should not only be anvolved in the Young Voters for Nixon, but should also be actively involved in our senior state political operations. If you approve, I will work with Ken Rietz and Harry Flemming to assure that we get as many youth members on our state committees as possible. Approve Disapprove Comment JEB S. MAGRUDER bcc: Mr. Haldeman CONFIDENTIAL September 8, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FROM: JEB S. MAGRUDER SUBJECT: RNC RESEARCH PROGRAM Attached is a memo prepared by Ed DeBolt, at Tom Evans' direction, describing the $350,000 RNC research program to compile a comprehensive census and political data base for the 1972 campaign. Briefly, the RNC has contributed varying sums of money to each of 18 state party organizations ($153,850 total - See Attachment C) to aid in developing base files for use in legislative redistricting. An addi- tional $130,000 has been budgeted for development of software and refinement of data reporting capabilities (Attachment A). The remaining $65,000 of the origi- nal budget has not yet been committed. We feel that these highly sophisticated base files can be very useful in targeting the Presidential campaign to Republican and swing voters through broadcast media, direct mail and telephones, parti- cularly in such key states as California, Illinois, Indiana, New Jersey, Florida and Ohio. Bob Marik has been working closely with the RNC research staff to develop plans for the most effective utilization of the data in 1972. September 3, 1971 MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable John N. Mitchell FROM: Thomas B. Evans, Jr. The attached outline was prepared by Ed DeSolt at my direction for your information. It provides detailed information on the basic elements and uses of the redistricting base file in which Jeb Magruder indicated you had an interest. In brief, the system benefits the President's campaign both directly and indirectly. Indirectly, the leadership role and financial assistance provided by the RNC has been highly beneficial as a service to state and local party leaders, incumbent Republican officials, and to the Republican candidates who will be running for Congress and State legislatures in 1972. As noted by John Andrews, the National Party has already received considerable good will from this effort and more importantly, we have established a valuable precedent of cooperative financial and project effort involving the key elements of the Party. The direct application, as far as the President's campaign is concerned, involves the use of census and political data which are particularly valuable when studied along with survey research data. Utilization of the information system in the campaign is described on Page 2, section D of the attached. It should be noted that the full potential of this information in the national campaign will not be known until the RNC and Citizens Committee staffs have completed their planning work on the targeting/resource allocation system. With the gains already made in Congressional and State legislative redistricting and the potential value of this information to our 1972 National efforts, the allocation of funds for the continued development of the system is justifiable. The Republican National Committee's Investment* in the purchase of computerized statistics and census data was Initiated as a multifaceted project intended to help a wide variety of Republican organizations. The following is an outline, in the briefest of terms, of some of the facets of the project. INTERESTED ENTITIES A. Citizens for the Re-Election of the President Committee B. Republican National Committee C. Republican Congressional Campaign Committee D. Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee E. Republican State Committees F. Republican County Committees G. Campaign organizations supporting candidates for governor, U. S. Senator, U. S. Congress, state constitutional offices, state legislators, mayors, city councilmen and county officials USES A. Congressional redistricting B. Legislative reapportionment Under catagories A & B 1. Offensive uses include: a. Assuring constitutionality of Republican sponsored bills by eliminating mathematical errors and omissions, and achieving the precise balance between districts required by the one man-one vote doctrine. b. Increase partisanship of Republican sponsored bills. C. Improve public relations by claiming to use non-partisan approaches and the most modern tools available to carry out the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court edicts. 2. Defensive uses include: a. Furnish documentary evidence of violation of the one man-one vote doctrine in connection with law suits Initiated against Democrat sponsored bills. b. Provide information on which Republican governors can base decisions as to whether bills should be signed or vetoed. C. Give Republican legislators an analysis of the partisan implications of Democrat sponsored bills within hours of Introduction. d. Furnish propaganda, backed by specific figures, to use against Democrats when their bills are partisan. C. Party building 1. Provide state committees with management tools that will assist them to assign vote quotas, allocate their resources and train county leaders in the latest techniques of using vote history and demographic information. * (See Attachment A) 2. Place the primary control of redistricting In the hands of party officials who have the interest of all segments of the party at heart rather than the interest of specific Incumbents. 3. Overcome factionalism as it relates to reapportionment and redistricting by causing party leaders to work together as a team to maximize the benefits of this expensive, sophisticated tool. Indiana and California are outstanding examples of this. D. Campaign applications Certain portions of the integrated geographic base files, particularly precinct-by-precinct voting statistics and correspondency tables showing the geographical relationship between precinct and census geography, can provide valuable Information for making campaign management decisions. This is especially true when that data is studied along with demographic imformation and the results of polls and surveys. The precinct statistics show the historical voting patterns, the demographics describe the type of people living in a given area and the survey data gives an indication of present voter attitudes. (See Attachment B) Some of the campaign decisions that a manager can make as a result of having ready access to vote history, demographics and surveys will result in: 1. Allocating a candidate's time more effectively. 2. Advising a candidate on the issues that should be stressed in speeches and press conferences in each area. 3. Increasing the cost effectiveness of expenditures by deciding which form of communication will reach the maximum number of people in an identifiable age, education, income or ethnic group. For instance, when market area are known by the media buyer, this data can aid him in choosing between: a. Direct mail b. Local radio C. Local television d. Door to door distribution of a brochure e. Use of a telephone boiler room 4. Choosing the most appealing issue to advertise via each form of media. 5. Minimizing backlash. OTHER FACTORS THAT CAUSED THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO INITIATE THE PROJECT In addition to the obvious importance to the administration of having a more favorable congressional line up, other factors were: A. Strengthening the leadership roles of the Republican N ational Committee and the Citizens Committee for the Re-Election of the President by using modern tools and thereby enhancing the respect of the state leaders for the two committees. -2- B. The timing of numerous legislative sessions that convened in January of 1971 while most state party organizations were in severe financial difficulty and unable to afford modern tools. C. The substantial goodwill to be gained by rendering financial assistance to state committees at a time when most are in debt as a result of the 1970 campaign. D. Starting an ongoing data bank to be used by various segments of the party in the future on a cost sharing basis. UTILIZATION TO DATE While the extent of our involvement varies substantially from state to state, * constructive use of the results of our computer work has been made in connection with reapportionment and redistricting functions in: Arizona Indiana New Mexico California Iowa New York Colorado Maine Ohio Connecticut Michigan Oregon Delaware Minnesota Utah Illinois New Jersey Washington Wisconsin No firm decision has been made by the state party leadership as yet, but Florida remains a possible user of our systems. LIMITING FACTORS While we clearly recognize the desirability of collecting similar data from each state and having a standard format, the realities of political organizations made this an impossibility. The principle factors that made more standardization impractical were: A. The degree of financial committment the various state committees were willing to make. B. The election years state leaders felt were politically significant. C. The election contests state leaders felt were politically significant. D. Precinct boundary changes which make tracking of historical data over a several year period difficult. The result of the variations in type of data and format by states mean that the specific management reports that can be generated will vary somewhat from state to state. PROBABLE GAINS A minimum of eight congressional seats should be gained by the Republican Party as a result of this project. Considering the cost of conducting congressional campaigns in 5 campaign years in eight congressional districts, the expenditure for this project is one of the most cost effective investments the Republican National Committee could possibley make. It seems to be even a better investment when the additional benefits listed above, especially providing management tools for an effective re-election campaign for the President, are considered. *(See Attachment C) -3- As John Andrews, Chairman of the GOP State Chairmen's Association sald at the recent meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver, "No RNC project has done more to reach the grass roots or pro- vide more Incentive and leadership when it was direly needed, than the assistance rendered with the Redistricting effort this past spring and summer.' ATTACHMENT A COMPUTER COST INFORMATION Activity Cost Estimates (RNC) 1. Development and acquisition of redis- tricting base files $153,850 2. Standardization and, where necessary for priority areas, acquisition of additional precinct vote information 40,000 3. Development of additional analysis reports (see Attachment B) 40,000 4. Standardization and, where necessary for priority areas, development of additional correspondencies/correlations between election and census geographic areas 30,000 5. Development of a Dominate Area of Influence model and a Media Allocation 'model 20,000 $283.850 The other $65,000 remaining in the budget of approximately $350,000 is available for further sopisticating computer analysis and mapping in areas of high priority plus variations of previous reports as needed by the White House or Citizens effort. -2- 1. The preparation of analyses of demographic and vote patterns for precincts, wards, and/or Census Tract areas; 2. The preparation of additional computer-generated density maps; 3. The analysis of correlations between census and election characteristics; and each must be evaluated in terms of its costs and possible benefits. ATTACHMENT C COSTS-BASE FILE PURCHASES Several potential base file purchases are in the negotiating stage at this time, so the following figures must, of necessity, just represent our best estimates. It will be noted that our percentage of participation varied greatly from state to state: RNC STATE TOTAL COST PARTICIPATION Arizona 15,000 2,500 California 225,000 25,000 Colorado 20,000 5,000 Connecticut 12,000 6,000 Delaware 10,000 2,000 Florida OPEN 10,000* Illinois 35,000 7,500 Indiana 103,000 15,000 Iowa 5,000 2,350 Michigan 42,000 17,000* Minnesota 24,000 9,000* New Mexico 5,000 500 New Jersey 30,000 10,000* New York UNKNOWN 7,500* Ohio 45,000 22,500 Oregon 20,000 3,000* Washington 20,000 3,000* Wisconsin 13,000 6,000 $624,000 $153,850 *Estimates only Constant efforts were made to hold down base file creation costs. In addition, every effort was made during negotiations with state leaders to cause the state party's participation to be substantial and the RNC's participation to be less than the 50% that was originally estimated. In many cases these efforts were successful. In addition, when it became apparent that an investment on the part of the RNC would not reap results because of our minority situation in a state legislature or bacause of a lack of resolve on the part of state party leaders, no investment was made. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are examples of this. CITIZENS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON August 31, 1971 SUITE 272 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON. D.C. 20006 (202) 333-0920 CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY by MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL In light of last Sunday's Evans-Novak column, we thought that the following information might be of interest to you: Lee Edwards, son of the Chicago Tribune's Willard Edwards, runs a number of public relations projects for conservative oriented groups out of an office on De Sales Street. Edwards was recently featured prominently in the media when he testified on the Hill, as director of Walter Judd's Committee of One Million, against the President's initiatives toward mainland China. Edwards "took over" this group after Marvin Liebman gave it up, and now has almost complete control over it. One of Edwards' most recent projects is "Americans for Agnew," a group designed to put pressure on the President to keep the Vice President on the ticket in 1972. Pat Gorman, who heads a political direct mail firm has sent out telegrams to conservative leaders ask- ing for donations, and our information is that Gorman and Edwards will soon commence a major series of mass mailings to raise money for this group. A third current project is "Friends of the FBI," of which Edwards is director of information. Gorman makes fund raising mailings for this group, also, and reportedly has raised $153,000, of which Gorman and Edwards have allegedly taken $55,000 in fees. "Friends of the FBI" began as a project of the "Commission for International Due Process of Law." The commission is non-profit and tax-exempt -- hence, donations to "Friends" have been tax-exempt and the organization's mailings made at the Post Office's lower rates for non-profit organizations. CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY 2 Just recently, IRS has warned that contributions to "Friends" might not be tax-exempt even though it has been a project of a tax- exempt commission. "Friends" now has its own petition before the IRS for tax-exemption because the parent Commission has said it will sever relations with "Friends" as of August 31, 1971. Contrary to what Evans-Novak state, The Richard A. Viguerie Company has not raised any money for "Friends" whatsoever. Gorman's firm handles all of Edward's direct mail work, including the direct mail solicitation for "Friends" and "Americans for Agnew." "Friends" has probably been cleared with Director Hoover since it is our information that when he receives checks intended for this organization he will endorse them over to "Friends" and send them to Edwards. JEB S. MAGRUDER CONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY Attachment Rowland Evans and Robert Novak Mills Hints New Tax Break might go into new plant and of a legal link to the Chlca- equipment. go-based Commission for In- Hoover Lobby ternational Due Process of Law (a tax-exempt organiza- THE CONTINUING popu- larity of FBI Director J. tion headed by Lails Kutner), FOF now has a petition of its Edgar Hoover in the face of own for tax-exemption before rising criticism that the old the Internal Revenue Serv- man (now 76) has abused his icc. The reason for that is 'FBI Friends' power and ought to quit is that some of Kutner's liberal stunningly revealed in the friends, including Democratic fund drive by a pro-Hoover Rep. Abner Mikva of Chi- Lack Pals in lobby called Friends of the cago, protested bitterly at his FBI (FOF), Inc. connection with FOF. Tax Service Organized only In late Thus some contributors to May, FOF has now received FOF, who sent their checks well over $100,000 in cash on the promise of tax exemp- United Press International gifts from a direct-mail cam- tion in solicitation letters The Internal Revenue Serv- paign that has solicited con- signed by television actor ice warned yesterday that it tributions from backers of Efrem Zimbalist Jr. (star of may not allow tax deductions right-wing causes, and from "The FBI"), may now not be for contributions to friends of what Lce Edwards, its public all that certain of getting it. the FBI, formed to defend the relations adviser, calls "Mid- Unless the IRS declares FOF agency against its critics. It dle Americans." The Richard a legitimate tax-exempt out- has collected over $100,000 in A. Viguerie Co., Inc., which fit, the pro-Hoover organiza- the past two months. handled fund-raising for the tion has lost its tax shelter. Lee Edwards, the group's abortive 1070 Senate cam- A footnote: The $100.000- public information director, paign of former federal plus collected by FOF will fi- said the money was solicited judge G. Harrold Carswell in nanee what is described as a in a mass mailing campaign Florida, has earried a major blue-ribbon commission of with a letter signed by actor load of the FOF fund drive. lawyers and scholars to study Efram Zimbalist Jr., who But it has not beon all a the FBI's history and write a plays in the television series bed of roses. Originally report titled: "The FBI: Its "The FBL" claiming that contributions Record and Performance." Edwards said letters went were tax-exempt as a result © 1971, Publishers-Hall Syndicate out to an estimated million persons. Zimbalist asked them to "sign a declaration of sup- port" and added: "Your gift is tax deductible so I ask you please to be generous." An IRS spokesman said yes- terday: "Friends of the FBI does not at this time nor ever has had a determination from us that it was tax exempt." To qualify for tax exempt status, organizations must prove they were established for religious, charitable, ed- ucational, literary or scientific purposes. Participation in po- litical campaigns, lobbying or publishing "propaganda" is prohibited. CITIZENS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON SUITE 272 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W. WASHINGTON. D.C. 20000 September 2, 1971 (202) 333-0920 MEMORANDUM FOR: JEB S. MAGRUDER FROM: KEN RIETZ SUBJECT: New Voter Day at Winrock Although the crowd was smaller than expected (1,000), I believe the event at Winrock last Saturday was a success. Dr. Harper did an excellent job of representing the President. His speech effectively told the youth story in terms of not only what the President has done for young people, but also how he has involved them in the Administration. Those attending responded very favorably, and I suggest we use him again. Governor Rockefeller is extremely interested in young people and the youth vote. He was a gracious host, although he stayed too long at the microphone. I believe a real understanding about the youth campaign was worked out with the YR's, and I talked to several people who could play key roles for us. All in all, it was a worthwhile effort. A voting machine was set up and about 200 voted. Here is a list of the questions and the results: For President-Richard Nixon 55% Wilbur Mills 45% Page 2 Do you approve of the President's intiative in Red China? Yes 71% No 29% Do you approve of the President's wage and price freeze? Yes 64% No 36% Do you approve of the way the President is handling his job? Yes 53% No 47% Do you approve of the way Gov. Bumper is handling his job? Yes 40% No 60% Do you think President Nixon will be re-elected? Yes 45% No 55% Are you satisfied with the President's de-escalation policy in Vietnam? Yes 56% No 44% Do you approve of the 18-year old vote? Yes 92% No 8% Do you intend to vote in 1972 even if you have to use an absentee ballot? Yes 82% No 18% THE WHITE HOUSE September 2, 1971 Information MEMORANDUM FOR JAMIE MC LANE FROM: ED HARPER SUBJECT: Salute to the Young Voter Speech At the request of our Speaker's Bureau, I spoke at Governor Winthrop Rockefeller's "Salute to the New Voter" at Winrock Farms, Arkansas on August 28th. Attached is a copy of the introduction and my remarks. Ken Reitz asked for a copy of my remarks; thus, they will be sent to him 23 a.copy of this memo. Attachments CC: Ken Cole Gordon Strachan Roy Mercy Ken Reitz ELH:ppd AINTE TO THE LE! VOTER" inrock Farms attyjean Mountain, Arkansas ugust 26, 1971 INFORMATION FOR INTRODUCTION The President directed Dr. Edwin L. Harper, his Special Assistant and Assistant Director of the Domestic Affairs Council to come to this meeting today to bring you a special message. Let me tell you a little about Ed Harper's background before presenting him to you. It was just six years age that Ed was Vice-President of the Student Council at the University of Virginia. Aside from his work on the Student Council, Ed was is member of the Editorial Ecard of the Cavalier Daily, a National Defense Fellow, and was elected to membership in the Raven Society and Omicron Delta Kappa--ODK. Ed took his Ph:D. in political science from the University of Virginia after having received a B.A. with Honors from a small literal arts college in Illinois, Principia College. In fact, Ed is a native of the mid-west having grown up in the St. Louis area. He knows Arkansas by virtue of having lived in Memphis for a few years and by having spent many summer vacations at his grandfather's farm just over the torder from Pochahontos, Arkansas, in Missouri. After leaving the University of Virginia Ed spent a year as a Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He went on to teach The American Presidency, Public Policy, and American Government at Rutgers University for two years. He then spent another year in Washington as a Fellow of the American Society for Public Administration working for the Bureau of the Budget in the Executive Office of the President. Ld then was hired by one of the nation's largest management consulting firms as a senior consultant specializing in budgeting, planning policy, and urban affairs. 2 In 1969 Ed joined the White Heuse staff as a Special Assistant to the President. When the Domestic Affairs Council was formed in July, 1970, Ed was made one of the four Assistant Directors of the Council. Thus, it does not necessarily have to be such a long road between your classroom and a room in the White House. I now introduce Special Assistant to the President of the United States, Ed Harper. Dr. Edwin L. Harper, REMARKS "Salute to the Young Voter" Winrock Farms Pettyjean Mountain, Arkansas August 28, 1971 I am honored to have the President send me here to Arkansas as his personal representative to you. In that capacity he asked me to deliver this telegram to you. The following is the text of the President's telegram: To the young Americans gathered this summer day at Winrock Farms, Congratulations! For all of you have received a great gift and challenge--the right to vote. Today, in a new and exciting way, you have a voice in the future of America. Yours is the cherished opportunity to help mold this land we all share. The history of this nation is a chronicle of the ever broadening power to participate. And as each new group has gained this franchise, it has brought freshneks and vitality to the purpose of government. So will you. You now have the most powerful means a citizen has of making himself heard in our free republic. In this "Salute to the New Voter," allow me also to join with you in thanking your host and my good friend, Governor Winthrop Rockefeller, who has contributed so much as a public leader and as a private citizen to the young people of Arkansas. To Governor Rockefeller and to all of you, my warm greetings and best wishes for the future. RICHARD NIXON Since the theme of this get together is voting your decision about who should be your elected representative-- I would like to share with you some of my personal observations about the President, the kind of nam he i., and how he feels à Pre sident, or for that matter, any nan running for public office should be judged. - 2 - The President's years as a highschool and college student were years fundamentally different from the years we have spent as highschool and college students. The one word used to describe those years is "depression. " To those who lived through it, it was more than the lowest point in a business cycle. It was a time when you, most of your family, and everyone you knew did not have a job and had no prospects of getting one in the foreseeable future. With no jobs, there was no income, and with no-income there were none of the amenities we enjoy today. There were few of the basics for some people. The President and his family struggled their way through the depression as did this nation. What the President found was that even in the depression hard work provided opportunities. Through his own extraordinary efforts he was able to complete college and go on to Duke University Law School in North Carolina. The President's hard work, his determination and his absolute faith in this country's potential to provide opportunities for self- fulfillment for those who will work for it characterize all he does today. This does not mean that he feels that the country has reached its potential in providing opportunities (or all nor that everyone must suffer through the same kinds of problems he solved. But - 3 rather'he feels that part of the beauty of this nation is that America has the spiritual and material resources to be a continually self renewing and improving country. As you know, the President has recently moved in a massive, comprehensive way on the economic front to insure job opportunities for Americans looking for work, A less publicized feature of his August 15th message was his announcement that in January he will present a new proposal to encourage research and development to create new industries and the 20 million new jobs we will need by 1980. The President's new economic policy is a good example of the way he works. The President could have just responded to the immediate problem in international trade. Instead the President called his top economic advisers together and said, let's take a look at all of the options; let's not take a patchwork approach; let's go for an across-the-board approach which points us towards a real solution to the problems of our economy. I was privileged to participate in some of the early meetings leading up the President's decisions announced in his August 15th statement on the economy. But it is not too unusual in the White House these days for younger people to have senior responsibility. Ron Ziegler, the President's press secretary, has just recently ** - 4 - gone over the hill--over 30. Of the four assistant directors of the Domestic Council--the President's personal domestic policy staff--only one is over 33. You might be interested to know that the man who headed up the interdepartmental task force which put together the President's environment package last year, Chris Demuth, was only 23. Two of our top professionals on the policy staff are women in their twenties who have already made outstanding careers for themselves in the practice of law and and management consulting. I believe this is the youngest White House staff in history, barring none. This is the staff which the President relies upon to make sure that all of the policy options are fully and carefully staffed out. It is his decisions on these policy options by which the President wants to be judged. The President does not feel that he nor any other elective official or candidate for office should be judged by the length of his hair by the modishness of his clothes nor by the intensity of his rhetoric. What the President feels counts is action--performance To promise something that you cannot accomplish is both irresponsible and destructive of the people's faith in America and its system. Only - 5 - by being tough minded can we as voters avoid the disappointment that comes with accepting promises that cannot be kept. Let me close with a quote which I think well summarizes the President's feelings about this country, its future, and your role in its future. The President said. "Let us tell young Americans, all Americans, that we should love America. But let us love her not because she is rich and not because she is strong, but because America is a good country and we are going to make her better "This is a beautiful country and we are privileged to be the generation that has the responsibility to make it even more beautiful for the generations ahead. 11 Thank you. (Quote from: President's Address to Junior Chamber of Commerce's National Convention in St. Louis, Missouri, June 25, 1970) DETERMANCE TO BE AN ADD E.J. 100 45102 September 8, 1971 By it 5-24-82 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: Georg Babbe Attached for your information is a resume for Georg Babbe whose name was given to me by Cliff Miller as a possible candidate for Campaign Manager in California. I worked with Mr. Babbe in the 1968 campaign when he was Regional Chairman of Los Angeles County. He was one of the most outstand- ing men in the campaign and was well accepted by everyone he dealt with. He is senior enough (47 years old) to handle high level types and would be known as a Nixon man. He has lots of energy and is a hard working individual. I think, under the right circumstances, he could be made avail- able and he would be an outstanding choice for Campaign Manager. JEB S. MAGRUDER Attachment bcc: Mr. Haldeman CONFIDENTIAL RESUME GEORG BABBE Date of Birth: February 20, 1924 - Butte, Montana Marital Status: Married. Four children Residence: Palos Verdes Estate, California Education: Attended elementary, junior and high schools in Great Falls, Montana. 1941-1944 - Attended Northwestern University 1946 - returned to Northwestern University and received degree in Business Administration with distinction in 1947. Member of Beta Gamma Sigma, honorary Business Fraternity Taken a number of American Management Association courses. 1958 - completed Economics of National Security course from the Industrial College of the Armed Forces. 1960 - Attended Senior Reserve Officers National Strategy course at National Board College Military: 1944 - Commissioned in the Navy; served in sub- marine detail in the Pacific in World War II; currently a Captain in the Naval Reserve. Business: October 1970 to Present - Manager of Pacific Lighting Properties February 1969-October 1970 - Vice President of Kierulff Electronics, Inc. December 1967-February 1969 - Director of Corporate Services for Ducommun Inc. Prior employment was with Southern California Gas Company for 17 years. Senior positions: Division Manager and Manager of Real Estate and Industrial Engineering. 2 Georg Babbe Community and Civic: Formerly Vice President of Los Angeles Junior Chamber of Commerce. Chairman, Southwest area of Los Angeles County Nixon for President Committee 1962-1969 - Trustee of Centinella Valley Hospital 1958-1959 - President, United Cerebal Palsy Association of Los Angeles County 1959 - Winner of Durward Howes Service Award COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W WASHINGTON D. C 20006 September 9, 1971 (202) 333-0920 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Attached is a report by David A. Keene on the YAF convention which he attended in Houston, along with Tom Huston, at our request. JEB S. MAGRUDER Attachment bcc: Mr. Gordon C. Strachan CONFIDENTIAL OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON September 8, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: JEB MAGRUDER FROM: DAVID A. KEENE ak SUBJECT: YAF CONVENTION I am sure you already have a pretty clear idea of the results of last week's YAF convention in Houston. We did not come out of the affair as well as I had hoped we might, but I do think we managed to do about as well as we had a right to expect. As I indicated before we left for Houston, there is a good deal of hostility toward the President in YAF. We never expected to get a favorable reaction from the delegates, but we did want to show them that we are still interested in their views. We succeeded in this goal and even managed to moderate the proceedings to some extent. The resolutions as reported to the convention by the Resolutions Committee were relatively moderate. I would describe them as "responsibly critical" and most of them passed on the floor without much uproar. However, the convention did insist on beefing up the so-called "Manhattan Twelve" statement by deleting the final two paragraphs. This action moved beyond the conservative leadership and put YAF in a position of greater hostility toward the Administration. The "mock nominating convention" held on Saturday evening was a disaster for all involved. The delegates had three favorites--Governor Reagan, Senator Buckley and the Vice President. but more than twenty names were placed in nomination. The YAF leadership evidently decided at some point to go with the Vice President. Jeb Magruder 2. September 8, 1971 This decision was opposed, however, by many delegates who believed that the White House wanted the Vice President to win as a means of blunting the impression of total hostility toward the Administration. This belief was strengthened by rumors that Steve Shadegg and possibly Dave Jones were attending as White House operatives and urging delegates to support the Vice President. The delegates resented this as well as Shadegg's alleged offer to, in effect, buy off Chairman Ron Docksai. This resentment combined with a particularly inflammatory speech by former YAF National Chairman, Robert Bauman, set the stage for the Saturday night debacle. You may recall that, when I talked with you prior to the mock convention, I said that we were dealing with a paper house, but that we didn't have too much to worry about if no one set it ablaze. Well, Bauman was the arsonist. The YAF leadership had also decided to place the President's name in nomination SO that they could embarrass him. We attempted to stop this without much success, and instead, the kids supporting him announced that they considered the Vice President's nomination a show of support for the Administration. The "mock convention" was, of course, a frivolous exercise without much meaning in itself. However, it did give the delegates an opportunity to demonstrate their distaste for the Administration and its programs at this point in time. The emotionalism of the evening can be explained by the fact that many of the kids participating worked in the '68 campaign and now feel betrayed. The significance of their discontent lies in the fact that they reflect, admittedly in exaggerated form, the feelings of many other conservatives. In this respect, they pose a problem both for us and for senior conservative leaders who cannot afford to get too far away from their supporters. People like Senator Goldwater are already Jeb Magruder 3. September 8, 1971 beginning to lose credibility within the conservative movement because of their loyalty to the President, while others are moving steadily to the right of the President to avoid this problem. I have said in the past that I believe we would be fooling ourselves if we adopt the attitude that this discontent is going to go away. It isn't going to. On the contrary, unless we move to do something about it, we can expect it to get worse. The problem, of course, is that most of their objections are of a substantive nature. This is particularly true in the areas of defense, wage and price controls, and welfare. YAFers are violently opposed to FAP and wage and price controls. There is no way in which they can be either sold on them or convinced to ignore them. And they, like their senior advisers, are afraid of our apparent strategic slippage. Given these problems, however, there are still some steps we might consider: 1. There are few identifiable "movement" conservatives in the Administration, and this is a point of contention that comes up whenever conservatives meet. 2. Many conservatives feel that we are simply not interested in their views. I know that some attempt is being made to increase our communications with the right, but I feel this effort should be stepped up. A little attention here could go a long way in 1972. 70 DE AN A G September 1, 1971 E.O. 1 6-102 By-Ef , Late 3-24-82 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL As you know, up to this time Bill Timmons has been handling the convention activities. Now that the site has been selected and the key committees set up, Bill has questioned me as to whether or not we expect him to continue in his present role as the working part of the convention begins to move into high gear. It would seem appropriate that we continue to use Bill as our direct liaison with the RNC on all matters pertaining to the convention. Approve Disapprove Comment JEB S. MAGRUDER bcc: Mr. Haldeman CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER 9, 1971 FOR H.R. HALDEMAN Attached is a memorandum from Bill Timmons recommending that John Rhodes be appointed the Chairman of the Platform Committee for the 1972 Republican National Convention. John Ehrlichman asked that I pass it through you to the President. John and I concur with Bill's recommendation that Rhodes be the Chairman of the Committee. We believe that we can work constructively with him and that an early and firm selection of a Chairman can avoid some other problems. We plan also to insure that Bryce Harlow plays an influential role as a member of the Platform Committee. (Unless you see some problems with Rhodes' selection, I plan to go ahead and advise Timmons that John Rhodes is acceptable as Chairman. Rhodes would like to have the job.) Please advise. Ken Cole cc: Bill Timmons THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 8, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: JOHN EHRLICHMAN FROM: WILLIAM E. TIMMONS SUBJECT: '72 Convention We should soon be thinking about the person who is to be selected Chairman of the Resolutions (Platform) Committee for the 1972 Republican National Convention. Senator Hugh Scott and Rep. John Rhodes have both expressed interest in being chairman of this Committee. Since Sen. Roman Hruska was Vice Chairman in 1968 under Everett Dirksen, he very likely could lay claim to the post. You may recall that the Committee was led by Mel Laird in '64 and Chuck Percy in '60. It is not necessary for the Chairman to be a Member of Congress although Senators & Representatives probably have a better grasp of issues and the nuances of drafting platform language. Since you have platform responsibilities, could you give me guidance on the individual you feel could best do the job and also one that you could work comfortably with? My own recommendation is for Rhodes. As Chairman of the House Policy Committee and as a senior Member of the Appropriations Committee he understands issues and their interrelationships. Also, taking a House Member would not force a decision between our loyal friend Hruska and our Senate leader Scott. Additionally, Johnny is well liked in Congress and the choice would be popular. The only possible liabilities, and they are minor, are Rhodes' close identification with the Conservative wing of the Party and a sometimes streak of western independence. On the key votes we measure loyalty by, John voted against the President only five times: three were SST, one the OEO authorization and another on funding the International Development Association. BRIEF BIO Rhodes is 55, married with four children, served in Air Corps in World War II, law degree from Harvard, member of a variety of social-service-veterans associations. John is in his 10th term, having been first elected in 1952. He served on both Education & Labor and Interior Committees before joining the Appropriations Committee. He has been Policy Chairman since 1963. THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 8, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: JEB MAGRUDER FROM: WILLIAM E. TIMMONS BT SUBJECT: '72 Convention Appointments There are a number of decisions which should be made soon and some which may be deferred regarding key posts at next year's national Republican Convention. Most of these decisions are for early planning and need not be announced until next spring and summer. Attached are the major official jobs for the Convention, a brief description of each and my personal recommendations. The Attorney General will certainly want to discuss these with the President and Bob Haldeman at some convenient time. When decisions are made, please let me know for planning and follow-up. cc: H. R. Haldeman FLOOR LEADER: An important publicity post. Should be identifiable personality who understands convention mechanics, politics and rules. Job is to represent candidate's interests on convention floor, make motions or speak to them for candidate, serves as conduit for infor- mation to key delegates. Floor leader is in constant communication with campiagn manager and podium. Recent Floor Leaders have been: - - 1968 - Rogers Morton -- 1964 - Curtis for Goldwater -- 1960 - ??? I recommend that Hugh Scott be asked to assume this role. The Pennsylvanian Senator is GOP Senat Leader and under- stands House rules from his years in that Body. A former National GOP Chairman who supported Rocky in '68 and Scranton in '64, but a Senator who with several exceptions supports the President's legislative program. If there is a revolt from the liberal camp over some platform plank or over the nomination of the Vice President, Hugh can communicate with the left wing. Also it is believed Scott will take instructions from the campaign manager. He expects to have a prominent role in the convention and has already sent signals for the Platform Chairmanship or, failing that, Rules Chairman. It is felt Scott must have some assignment or he and his friends will be extremely upset. It is believed the Floor Leader position is controllable. APPROVE DISAPPROVE NOMINATOR AND SECONDERS: Key actors in Convention drama. New Rules will probably be adopted to limit nomination and seconding addresses to a total of fifteen minutes, to be allocated as each major candidate determines. (Favorite sons and symbolic candidates will have five minutes total). It will probably be smart to have a number of speakers with very short remarks to show broad support for the President. A good spot for Governors, especially Reagan & Rockefeller. Possibility for Cabinet officers. Recent nominators and seconders have been: -- 1968 - Agnew, Hatfield, Baker, Volpe & Ogilvie -- 1964 - (Goldwater) Dirksen, Knowland, Clare Luce, Tower, Halleck -- 1960 - Hatfield, Kuchel, Chris Del Soto, Jewel Rogers, Taft, John Roosevelt, Mrs. Andrew Gavin, Javits The decision for these posts should be made after the Democratic National Convention and be used to the best media advantage for the President. APPROVE DISAPPROVE RULES CHAIRMAN: Presides over convention Rules Committee which makes rules changes recommendations to full convention. Important the Chairman be loyal and familiar with House Rules as well as existing RNC rules for a National Convention. In preparation for the '72 Convention, the RNC has already created a Rules Committee to study possible changes, hear arguments, etc. Normally, if elected delegates from their states, members of this Committee become actual Convention Rules Committee since they will have had most familiarity with issues. Former Rep. Bill Cramer is Chairman of the RNC Rules Committee. I recommend that Cramer be continued as Rules Chairman for the Convention. He is an able lawyer, thoroughly conversant with House and RNC Rules. He is in best position to carry forward recommendations and should work well with the campaign staff. APPROVE DISAPPROVE KEYNOTER: Gives major speech on first evening of Convention. Maximum television exposure, sets scene and tone for Convention. Selection must be carefully made in light of political circumstances in August of 1972 and image we need to project. Recent keynoters have been: - - 1968 - Dan Evans - - 1964 - Mark Hatfield - - 1960 - Walter Judd I recommend that the selection of the keynoter be held until after the Democratic National Convention but that Chairman Dole be charged with stopping any lobbying by interested politicians. Should one individual build up broad support for the job and for campaign reasons not be selected, there will be friction. APPROVE DISAPPROVE ARRANGEMENTS VICE CHAIRMAN: Is Member of Republican National Convention who is assigned all logistics for Convention. Responsible for Subcommittees on Housing, Transportation, Program, News Media and Tickets/Badges. Vital post to operations. Recent Vice Chairmen have been: -- 1968 - Don Ross - - 1964 - Bob Pierce - - 1960 - Jaren Jones This post has already been filled by Dick Herman of Nebraska. Dick was regional director for '68 campaign, worked on transition staff for personnel, held key position in Nixon effort in Miami Convention. Has already been most helpful. CHIEF PAGE: Usually a young man to organize and supervise official Convention pages. Pages are assigned each delegation and RNC offices, media, etc. Not a major post but one to reward friends and to establish network of intelligence for campaign operation (actually states appoint most of their own pages). Chief Page should work closely with Nixon Youth organization. Recent Chief Pages have been: -- 1968 - Lance Tarrance - - 1964 - Michael Gill -- 1960 - Tom Van Sickle I recommend Jay Wilkinson for the spot. Jay worked in the '68 convention and campaign. Served at the Pierre and White House. Ran for Congress. Son of prominent sports figure. Is an ordained Minister. APPROVE DISAPPROVE SERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Administrative head of convention hall security and ushers. Responsible for validating tickets, parking permits, etc. No law enforcement experience necessary but loyalty and ability very important. Recent Sergeants at Arms have been: -- 1968 - Jack Sherwood - - 1964 - Robert Carter - - 1960 - Edward McGinnis This appintment has already been made with approval of the Attorney General. He is Ody Fish, former GOP State Chairman of Wisconsin. PLATFORM CHAIRMAN: Presides over the hearings and sessions of the Resolutions Committee. Presents report to the delegates for adoption. Extremely important and difficult post. Must understand President's policy, national issues, public and delegate attitudes, etc. Hugh Scott and John Rhodes both want job. Roman Hruska probably would like assignment since he was Dirksen's Vice Chairman in 1968. Recent Platform Chairmen have been: -- 1968 - Everett Dirksen - - 1964 - Melvin Laird - - 1960 - Charles Percy I recommend Rhodes get the nod. Have also asked John Ehrlichman for his views on best man. Johnny has been Chairman of the House GOP Policy Committee for nine years. Serves on Appropriations Committee and has also been on Interior and Education & Labor Committees. Harvard lawyer, World War II Air Corps, 55 years old, married with four children. He has voted "wrong" on only five occasions over 2-1/2 years: three on SST, one on OEO authorization, and one on funding International Development Association. APPROVE DISAPPROVE PARLIAMENTARIAN: Makes recommendations to the Chairman on all questions of rules, procedures and precedents relating to the Convention. He must be a loyalist and personally compatible with the Permanent Chairman. Since the House Rules are used, the Parliamentarian should be a House Member. Rules Committee experience is helpful. Recent Parliamentarians have been: - - 1968 - H. Allen Smith - - 1964 - Katherine St. George - - 1960 - Katherine St. George I recommend that Smith again be given the assignment. He is best authority on House Rules. APPROVE DISAPPROVE SECRETARY: Normally held by the woman who is Secretary to the Republican National Committee. This is an important position that has seldom been effectively used. The Secretary's principal role is to call the roll of the states, announce tallies, etc. Therefore, the Secretary is on camera a lot. She should be an attractive and competent lady. Mrs. Connie Bailey of Vermont is RNC Secretary but does not project well and is unattractive physically. Recent Secretaries have been: - - 1968 - Mrs. Connie Bailey -- - - 1964 - Mrs. C. D. Buck -- 1960 - Mrs. E. E. Heffelfinger I recommend that we change precedent in 1972 and have the National Co-Chairman, Mrs. Anne Armstrong, serve as Secretary of the Convention. Anne is popular, attractive, dignified, and possesses a pleasant voice. She is from important Texas and currently will have virtually no official role in the Convention. APPROVE DISAPPROVE PERMANENT CHAIRMAN: Presides over the Convention for all business, including adoption of Committee reports (Platform), nominations and selection of candidates, acceptance speeches, etc. If the Convention continues to follow the House of Representatives Rules it seems appropriate that a House Member be the permanent Chairman. Jerry Ford has expressed interest in the job and most politicians expect he will be named (actually, he must be elected by the Convention itself). This probably the most important Convention responsibility. Recent permanent chairmen have been: - - 1968 - Gerald Ford - - 1964 - Thruston Morton - - 1960 - Charles Halleck I recommend that Ford again be given the assignment. APPROVE DISAPPROVE TEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Presides over the early non-working sessions of the Convention (organization session and also keynote session). This is a prestigious appointment but one that can do relatively little damage to us. A good spot to expose a liberal or minority Republican or candidate in need. Recent temporary chairmen have been: -- - - 1968 - Edward Brooke - - 1964 - Mark Hatfield -- 1960 - Cecil Underwood I am not prepared to make a recommendation at this time and believe the post should be held open until after the Democratic Convention. Probably should go to a Governor (Holton, Ogilvie?) if that will not hurt general election effort. APPROVE DISAPPROVE September 1, 1971 DETERMINED T3 AN 2 By 3-22-82 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SUBJECT: '72 Convention Enclosed for your approval or disapproval is a memorandum from Bill Timmons regarding hotel accommodations, transportation, and seating for major officials in the Administration. Bill is being pressed by the RNC Arrangements Committee for answers to these various questions. JEB S. MAGRUDER Enclosure bcc: Mr. Haldeman CONFIDENTIAL THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON August 30, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: JEB MAGRUDER FROM: WILLIAM E. TIMMONS SUBJECT: 72 Convention The RNC Arrangements Committee is pushing me for answers to questions about hotel accommodations, transportation and convention seats for major officials in the Administration. While White House personnel will be located with the campaign staff and President and Vice Presidential parties, Cabinet and subcabinet officials probably could best serve by being housed with their home state delegations. Also, we need to know how many of the subcabinet and agency heads and their staff will be attending the convention. There are two approaches: we can tell them who is to attend, where they 11 stay, etc. or we can ask them who in their department will be in attendance. I prefer the latter course and recommend I be authorized to contact each Cabinet officer and agency head to request information. APPROVE DISAPPROVE It is my hope that the above officials will be honored guests of the RNC for the convention and that seats and ground transportation will be provided by the National Committee. However, airline transportation and hotel rooms and charges will be the responsibility of the individual Cabinet officer. APPROVE DISAPPROVE Attached are listings of the principal officers who may be included in your consideration, however, I question including anybody from regulatory bodies. Incidentally, I anticipate that George Shultz and his principal personnel will be housed with the White House staff. 1. William P. Rogers Secretary of State 2. John B. Connally Secretary of Treasury 3. Melvin Laird Secretary of Defense 4. John Mitchell The Attorney General 5. Winton Blount The Postmaster General 6. Rogers Morton Secretary of Interior 7. Clifford Hardin Secretary of Agriculture 8. Maurice Stans Secretary of Commerce 9. James Hodgson Secretary of Labor 10. Elliot Richardson Secretary of HEW 11. George Romney Secretary of HUD 12. John Volpe Secretary of Transportation 13. Robert F. Froehlke Secretary of the Army 14. Robert Seamans Secretary of the Air Force 15. John Chafee Secretary of the Navy 16. George Bush Ambassador to the U.N. 17. David Kennedy Ambassador At Large 18. Dr. Arthur Burns Chairman, Federal Reserve Board 19. Dr. Edward David Science Advisor to the President 20. Virginia Knauer Consumer Advisor to the President 21. Paul McCracken Chairman, Council of Economic Advisors 22. Russell Train Chairman, Environmental Quality Council 23. Director of OEO 24. George Lincoln Director of OEP 25. Nils Boe Director of Intergovernmental Relations 26. Carl Gilbert Special Representative for Trade Negotiations 27. Clay Whitehead Director, Office of Tele- communications Policy 28. Donald Whitehead Federal Co-Chairman, Appalachian Regional Comm. 29. William Ruckelshaus Administrator, EPA 30. William Brown Chairman, EEOC 31. Robert Kunzig Administrator, GSA 32. Dr. James Fletcher Administrator, NASA 33. Thomas Kleppe Administrator, SBA 34. Frank Shakespeare Director, USIA 35. Donald Johnson Administrator, VA 36. Dr. John Hannah Administrator, AID 37. Joseph Blatchford Director, ACTION LIST OF THOSE NOT INCLUDED Chairman, AEC Commission (Jim Schlesinger) Director, Arms Control Agency Chairman, CAB Chairman, Civil Service Commission President, Exim Bank (Henry Kearn) Governor, Farm Credit Administrator Chairman, FFC (Dean Burch) Chairman, FDIC Director, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service Chairman, FPC Chairman, FTC Chairman, Foreign Claims Settlement Chairman, Indian Claims Council Chairman, ICC Chairman, National Commission on Consumer Finance Administrator, National Credit Union Admin. Chairman, National Foundation on the Arts & Humanities Chairman, NLRB Director, National Science Foundation President, Overseas Private Investment Corp. Chairman, Renegotiation Board Chairman, SEC Director, Selective Service System Chairman, SACB Commissioner, Tariff Commission (Catherine May) Chairman, TVA Chairman, FHLB Board (Preston Martin) Chairman, Federal Maritime Commission (Helen Bentley) President, FNMA (Oakley Hunter) September 8, 1971 6-102 3-24-82 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL BOB HALDEMAN - FROM: HARRY DENT Asso SUBJECT: Kentucky Governor's Race Attached is a confidential report on the Kentucky governor's race. This is the only governor's race in 1971 in which we have a candidate. He is very handsome and is running a good race. His name is Tom Emberton, and he has the full backing of Governor Louie Nunn. The polls show Emberton running behind but only by a small margin. In fact, this is a good sign, since he is a new face on the statewide scene. As you can see from the attachment, one straw vote indicates a toss- up and the major editors across the state split evenly on who is ahead. A big factor in our favor is the Democrat split caused by Ford's primary victory over ex-Judge Combs. This will probably be one of the few real weathervane votes that political writers and political pros can bill as a referendum on the Nixon Administration between now and 1972. As you will see from the poll information in the attachment, the President is currently riding very high. This seems to be based largely on a quick poll taken after the President's economic message. What these people are crying for now is a commitment from here for anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000 to be set aside for TV during the closing weeks of the campaign. Governor Nunn has already helped them raise a fair amount of money and they have put aside $150,000 for election day activities. This is not to be touched under any circumstances. - 2 - They have raised about $500,000 and expect to spend around $1 million. They think it will be all they can do to survive financially between now and election day. What they want is assurance that they will be able to have TV money. They say they will not touch any of this money and that it could be controlled so that it would be used only for that purpose. They need to know as soon as possible whether there is any possibility of getting any commitment from here. I have talked to Governor Nunn, the State Chairman, and the campaign leaders. They all endorse this request very strongly. ANALYSIS Or RACE IN KENTUCKY, NOVEMBER 4, 1211 I. Post Primary Election Scene A. The Democratic primary election was won by Lt. Gov. Wendell Ford. Ford, whose background includes the State Senate and the national presidency of the Jaycees, is a resident of Owensboro, Daviess County. Ford was an upset victor over former Governor Bert Combs in the eyes of the press. However, the preprimary surveys conducted by the Emberton organization indicated that Ford would defeat Combs on the basis of: *Combs lack of credibility stemming from problems with his administration and his resignation from the Federal Bench to seek the governorship again. *The ability of Ford to pin the 'high taxes' label on Combs. In fact, the first Emberton survey in December, 1970, indicated the difficulties Combs would have in overcoming the above two points. Despite a strenuous primary in which nearly $1,500,000 was reported being spent by the two, a very low turnout marked the Democratic Primary. In fact less than 10% of the state's registered voters played a part in Ford's success. Combs' running mate for Lieutenant Governor, Julian Carroll, was successful in the primary however. This couples two bitter, former enemies in an uneasy alliance at prese It is interesting to note that continuing rumors of problems between Ford and Carroll persist. It is also significant to note that both Ford and Carroll are from western Kentucky which means a blackout in terms of the top of the ticket from the major population areas of the state in a commonwealth in which regional loyalties are strong. II. The Image of Nunn and Nixon Administrations All current surveys conducted by the Emberton organization indicate basic satisfaction with both Administrations. This credibility is important to an Emberton victory. It would appear that the Ford-Carroll camp recognizes the need to destroy the image of the Nunn and Nixon Administrations as the majority of negative comment coming from them at present is anti-Nunn and anti-Nixon. The Ford-Carroll operation has been touted as the start of the national "Dump Nixon" movement by the Democratic party in the state. To date, Governor Nunn has refrained from entering the hustings. It is anticipated that he will be an active participant on the campaign trail after Labor Day. III. The Ford Strategy in the Post Primary Period The Ford Strategy in the primary is being repeated in the General Election. He is extremely abusive of Tom Emberton, Nixon and Nunn. His tactics in the primary were more rough than any this observer has witnessed in a long career of watching politics. He employs the 'big lie' technique and does it with a straight face. He has benefited from the fact that major media in the state simply report his comments without juding their accuracy or truth. At present, he is attempting to put the label of more taxes on Emberton and continually emphasizes the economic 'failures' of the Nixon and Nunn Administrations. His major problem in this post-primary period has been to try and heal the division within the Democratic Party. For a time, he acted in a very high-handed manner, but evidently convinced by his advisors of the need for reconciliation, he has, in the last several weeks, attempted to enroll former members of the Combs team. He has had some success in this regard. During the primary, Ford made extensive use of radio and newspaper advertising. His television schedule, on which he makes a poor appearance, was quite limited. He spent over $450,000 reported on his primary race, however. IV. Post Primary Strategy for Emberton During the primary, Tom Emberton maintained a very low profile. He held a series of issue hearings which generated favorable but low key press. Immediately after the primary, this strategy changed. It had been decided that if Combs won the primary, the low profile would continue to the fall in the hope that negative Combs sentiment would build of its own accord. If Ford, however, won, in order to demonstrate that all was well with the GOP campaign and that we were not down and out because of the Ford victory, it had been early determined that we would surface immediately following the primary and using 'jag' theories of media exposure, attempt to mount a series of high profile exposures over the summer months. This strategy has been implemented through a series of dramatic issue pronouncements used to demonstrate Emberton as a decisive individual; some paid television utilizing 'hi, image' spots, a limited amount of newspaper exposure advertising in Republican areas, and very strenuous campaigning (dawn to midnight) on Emberton's part. (For example, plant gates at dawn have been the rule since June). The most impact issue to date, has been Emberton's decision to remove the five per cent sales tax on food. This issue has tremendous popular appeal. Our main problem, as will be noted below, is the failure of nearly one half of the state to be aware of the nominee's position. Because of budget exigencies, our exposure on this has been limited even though we were front page headlines at the time of the announcement. In all this, it is essential to remember, that we must try and dominate our positions through paid time this gets our message across in the way we wish it recevied by the voter rather than relying on the trusthworthiness of the media! In all these months, we have employed the criss-cross theory of an event in one end of the state in the morning, another at noon in another location, etc., in order to give us multi-area media exposure during an average day. Emberton has stressed program and principle in an attempt to head off the Ford personal invective. Emberton is a highly personable, very strong, popular campaigner. His one-on-one contacts are excellent. In the joint appearances to date, Emberton has come off the points on leader although he has not put Ford down for the knock out. The Emberton organization at the county levels is relatively complete but it is yet to be judged in terms of its effectiveness. Initial volunteer ploys such as the neighborhood walks (the candidates walk the neighborhoods as a bait to get volunteers to canvass in large numbers) in the metro areas have been quite successful. For example, over 100 volunteers covered 5300 homes in northern Kentucky in 90 plus degree heat last Saturday. We are building toward a 'neighbors' strategy for the last two weeks in the larger metroareas (Northern Ky., Louisville, Lexington, Ashland, Bowling Green, Paducah). The support from former Combs supporters has been most impressive. A strong DEmocratic organization is at work with its own field staff in three of the state's seven congressional Districts and is daily growing. Endorsements from significant Democrats have been building. This is a major source of encouragement. The Combs-Ford wounds have not healed! Any observer of Southern/Border state politics knows how effective such feuds can be in terms of adding votes for the GOP column on election day. V. Immediate Goals The immediate goal of the Emberton effort is to continue the building process so successfully begun in these summer months. Polls indicate that Emberton is now approaching the 70 per cent recognition factor but in view of Ford's high factor (over 90) this gap must be closed in the next weeks. In addition, when pressed there is a relatively low-undecided factor in the head on encounters which indicates the aftermath of the particularly active primary. Accordingly, we believe in the next four weeks we must: a. Consolidate recognition b. Provide depth to the Emberton image C. Stir our own troops d. Begin the negative attack on Ford (this is vital to keep the Combs People with us) e. Dominate our areas of media television and weekly press and dominate through our own material rather than relying on a generally hostile press f. Continue the development of our volunteer team with an emphasis on trial projects g. Continue development of our special groups (Drs., lawyers, farmers, for selective direct mail in the fall) h. Continue the candidate's high exposure schedule VI. Budgets Wendell Ford and Julian Carroll expended (on record which does not include many of their county committees) over $850,000 in the primary. Money is not a worry for them. Their professional staff far outnumbers our own at present. The signs of their affluence are around us and the recent support they have received from COPE (despite many unions favorable comment to us on our food tax stand) indicates that national labor will be pouring in money for them. Ford's campaign manager, the director of a large rural electric cooperative, is rumored to use his organization's funds for political participation. This could be done through personal service contracts with the money then passed through an individual's books to the campaign. This would explain some $220,000 to Ford from only 16 donors in the primary many of whom would not appear to be in the economic bracket to afford $15,000 plus contributions individually. The Emberton campaign to date has expended circa $475,000. In addition we have about another $200,000 in available sources at hand. Our total budget is about $1,200,000 contrasting with the Democratic budget of circa $1,600,000 to $1,750,000. The greatest need at present is to consolidate our television pesture. We must immediately purchase our television for continuing exposure and for the big fall push. Now is the time to buy October television to insure the best available time rather than take 'left over primes. (more) -4- Accordingly we seek $250,000 - 300,000 from national sources. We believe we can generate from $800,000 - 900,000 in Kentucky. The uses of the national money would be as follows: $250,000 for television time 60,000 for specialized direct mail (target groups with a negative sell) 45,000 for a 'neighbors' program in metro areas during the last month. The issue is very simple. 1. The polls indicate Emberton can win. 2. The impression Emberton makes is superb one of the really dynamic young men to come on the GOP scene in major level politics recently. 3. The issue in this election is, in part, an endorsement of the Nixon Administration All available media emphasizes this constantly. 4. As the only contested race in the nation, we must bear the burden of attention. This means that every national opposition source is aiding our opponent. 5. With the new economic policy of the Nixon Administration, (and Kentucky's economic situation), it will be a matter of course for the news media to judge Kentucky's race this year as an endorsement for the President. 6. In short, because of the national attention, the cost of the Kentucky race is high but such a cost is a 'absolute bargain basement special' if we can hold this vital race and provide the beginning of the GOP success for 1972. We believe that given the strengths of the Nixon, Nunn team; given the attractiveness, willingness and strength of the nominee and his slate; and given the growing possibilities of his organization victory is possible. BUT, the time for the money to be fed is TODAY. Today we can buy the best television time. Tomorrow we get the left-overs. Every dollar on the above budget will be put into television time. but the emphasis must be television now and the best for October. Further, with our television budget in hand, we can realistically utilize our own dollars where they must count at the local levels and in other essential forms of communication. Finally, our oppoisition was forced into accepting a spending limitation on media that we proposed accordingly, given the above budget now realistically, effectively and wisely spent on this medium, we can dominate the market with a proven attractive force Tom Emberton. It's a dollar spent wisely in 1971 to insure victory in '72!!! TO: John Kerr 8/26/71 Some random observations from the formal report presented to the Emberton for Governor Committee covering the public opinion survey conducted in the State of Kentucky during the week of August 15, 1971. (Note: As in the previous surveys, Professor Dan Nimmo was project consultant) This was a 'reviver' survey covering areas previously polled in the December, April and early July interview schedules. Circa 600 interviews were conducted in metropolitan counties only (previous schedules were in excess of 1700 interviews). Included in the schedule were interviews in Jefferson County (Louisville), Fayette (Lexington), Boyd (Ashland), McCracken (Paducah), Graves (May- field), Warren (Bowling Green), Daviess (Owensboro), Henderson (Henderson) Franklin (Frankfort), Woodford (Versailles), Scott (Georgetown), Madison (Richmond), the northern Kentucky complex of Campbell, Boone and Kenton, Pike (Pikeville), and selected areas in the Fifth District including Pulaski, Bell and Jackson Counties but not the rural areas of this District. The prime thrust of the survey was to: 1. Determine if the Emberton high profile (begun as of June 15) was gaining recognition. 2. Determine if Emberton was building voter support from the behind position he occupied in the December and April polls. 3. Determine if the Nunn Administration continued in a favorable light. 4. Determine if there continued to be support for the Nixon Administra- tion. On the basis of the current endeavor, it would appear that all four above points are positive for the Emberton campaign. 1. Recognition: Wendell Ford - 90.1 Tom Emberton - 76.3 (67 per cent in July 28 per cent in April ) 2. Head on: Wendell Ford 37.9 Tom Emberton 32.7 A. B. Chandler 7.5 Bill Smith (AIP) .5 (This is excellent progress and indicates the election is moving in a CIVIC SERVICE INCORPORATED ANALYSIS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WASHINGTON, D.C. favorable direction for the Emberton effort. The July support for Emberton 27.9 versus 46.8 for Ford) The above head-on obviously reflects the success of Emberton's issue posture on the food tax issue. It is important to note, however, that in the semantic deferential and ideal candidate phase of the schedule that Emberton's image is settling in a 'personal pattern' rather an 'issue orientation' focus this factor should aid the continuing upward movement of the Emberton candidacy. On the sales tax on food issue: Over 88 per cent indicated their approval of removing said tax. Over 55 per cent of all voters were able to identify Emberton as the nominee who had proposed doing away with this tax. 2. The Nunn Administration continues with a strong degree of voter approval. One question was deliberately loaded to reflect the attack that Ford is now waging aginst the Nunn team. Despite such loading on the 'honesty' syndrome, Nunn scored most favorably indicating that Ford will have a hard row to hoe in seeling voters on his negative theme against the Governor. 3. The Nixon Administration likewise continued with favorable appeal: Support for the President's recent economic actions: Strongly approve 13.4 Approve 56.5 Disapprove 18.5 Disapprove strongly 3.5 Don't Know 8.2 There was an element of questioning as to exactly what the package was designed to accomplish. Support for the Nixon Administration: President's approval rating: Strongly approve 8.5 Approve 52.5 Disapprove 22.5 Strongly disapprove 3.5 NOTE: It is evident from the virulent attacks by Ford and his team on the Nixon and Nunn Administrations that their own polling is presenting this same positive picture of the national and state administrations and hence must be negatively clouded for Ford to hold his own this November. Result: Ford's attempt to smear Nunn and to raise the spectre of a new depression as the 'result' of supposed Nixon failures. CIVIC SERVICE INCORPORATED ANALYSIS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WASHINGTON, D.C. CONF IDENTIAL Head on choice between contestants in 1968 presidential race: (Note this was a forced closed end choice it was interesting that few voters, however, volunteered an alternative such as Kennedy, Reagan or McGovern) Nixon 47.5 Humphrey 24.7 Wallace 13.2 Other 3.7 Don't Know 11.5 The next survey, including rural areas is scheduled for the first week in September. CIVIC SERVICE INCORPORATED ANALYSIS ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI WASHINGTON, D.C. at Kenturelay State Fair 4/28/71 Indipendent booth ballots: youth Booth Emberton 2423 Ford 2431 Chandler 259 Smith (AIP) 248 15y. assoc. of Older Persons Emberton 50% ford 38% Chandler 7% Smith 4% Poll by ty. Post of Editors: & thought Emberton us bad 8 " Ford " " 10 " toss-up MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 3, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: H. R. HALDEMAN FROM: HARRY S. DENT DSD Thought you would like to know that we got much good play out of the Kissinger briefing for the Billy Graham group. This has been played very much in Southern Baptist and other religious publications. Attached is some information on this subject. Dr. Criswell, a former Southern Baptist Convention president, announced that he changed his views on the proposed trip to China after the briefing. Also, Paul Harvey has really come through strongly for the President as per the memo I sent you yesterday on this subject. CC: Dr. Kissinger Billy Graham August 12; 1971 2 Baptist Press Criswell said Nixon was going to Peking because Red China must be reckoned with as a world power, and because of the deep cleavage in the Communist world. "We don't want Russia speaking for the entire Communist world,' he said. He added that Russia and China are deeply divided, practically and ideologically; that the Russians are blunt realists and the Chinese are zealous idealists; and that China could not challenge U. S. power for years to come but Russia could now. Criswell added that the President's visit to China would seek to improve relations with a growing world power, but that America will not allow Southeast Asia to fall to the Communists. -30- Loan Service of Mission Agency Expands Nationally 8/12/71 GLORIETA, N. M. (BP) Southern Baptist Home Mission Board voted here to expand the work of its Division of Church loans by eliminating limitations for its work only to "new territory" areas and expanding its activities to the entire nation. Since 1959, operating on the basis of limited funds and resources, the division had confined its work to those state conventions (organized since 1940) where most new churches were being started and where local financing was hard to find because Southern Baptists were not well known, board officials said. Robert H. Kilgore of Atlanta, director of the division, said needs in the states where Southern Baptists are well established are greater now than in 1959. He said weekly requests from these areas have been far between 10 to 20 loans. The division has made arrangements for expanded borrowing of funds to be used for these loans. However, Kilgore does not expect money to be the major assistance. "Counseling to correlate the purchase of land and erection of buildings as it relates to the financial program of the church will be our major commodity, he said. He cited an increasing number of churches which have been abused because of unwise financial evressive building and even erecting the wrong type of building. "Quite often the location of the facilities in the community are not planned in relationship to the changing complex of the community or the growing edge of the community," he said. Financial assistance may run second to counseling but funds will go for two pur- poses: (1) the purchase of church sites where new churches are being organized, and (2) where local financing cannot be obtained reasonably, the division will make loans as it is able. The loans will not exceed $1,000,000 for 20 years, and they are made for the "going rate" of interest based on current economic conditions and sound business principles. "Mostly our rate of interest is determined by the rate we are required to pay for funds we borrow," Kilgore said. Currently that rate is 8 1/2 percent, but the division does not charge for its services. Kilgore stressed the fact that the present action will not alter the division's ability to serve the churches in the newer areas. -30- Home Mission Board Names Three New Staff Members 8/12/71 GLORIETA, N. M. (BP) The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, in annual session at Glorieta Baptist Assembly here, elected three new staff members to the national mission agency with offices in Atlanta. E. Warren Rust, former president of the Tennessee Baptist Convention and pastor in St. Louis, Mo. was named assistant director of the Division of Associational Services; and Roy W. Owen of the board staff, was appointed associate director of that division. -more- NATIONAL OFFICE 460 James Robertson Parkway (BP) Nashville, Tennessee 37219 BAPTIST PRESS Telephone (615) 244-2355 W. C. Fields, Director News Service of the Southern Baptist Convention Jim Newton, Assistant Director BUREAUS ATLANTA Walker L. Knight, Chief, 1350 Spring St., N.W., Atlanta, Ga. 30309, Telephone (404) 873-4041 DALLAS Billy Keith, Chief, 103 Baptist Building. Dallas, Texas 75201, Telephone (214) 741-1996 NASHVILLE (Baptist Sunday School Board) Lynn M. Davis, Jr., Chief, 127 Ninth Ave., N., Nashville, Tenn. 37203, Telephone (615) 254-1631 RICHMOND Jesse C. Fletcher, Chief, 3806 Monument Ave., Richmond, Va. 23230, Telephone (703) 353-0151 August 12, 1971 WASHINGTON W. Barry Garrett, Chief, 200 Maryland Ave., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, Telephone (202) 544-4226 30 Religious Leaders Briefed By White House on Red China WASHINGTON (BP)--About 30 religious leaders selected by Evangelist Billy Graham, including about eight Southe rn Baptists, received an hour-long briefing here at the White House on U. S. foreign policy involving Red China. The briefing was led by Henry A. Kissinger, assistant to the President for national security affairs who made the arrangements in Peking recently for Pr sident Nixon's forth- coming visit to mainland China. Kissinger talked to the 30 religious leaders for about an hour on basic principles of U. S. foreign policy and relations with Red China, with the final 30 minutes of the briefing devoted to questions and duscussion by the group. Following the briefing, the group went into President Nixon's office for a greeting. The President did not attend the briefing itself, which was held in the White House cabinet room At the beginning of the meeting, Graham explained that the President and Kissinger had earlier given him a private briefing. He said he was SO impressed that he suggested that the White House invite a number of his friends for a similar briefing. About 30 persons suggested by Graham, most of them representing the conservative and evangelical stream of religious viewpoint, were invited. Southern Baptists who attended were W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church, Dallas; Porter W. Routh, executive secretary of the Southern Baptist Executive Committee; Robert Denny, general secratary of the Baptist Wor Alliance; Graham and his associate T. W. Wilson of the Graham team. Other Baptist laymen attending were Fred Rhodes, deputy administrator of Veterans Administration and former vice president of the SBC; W. Maxey Jarman of Nashville, former chairman of the board of Genesco, Inc.; and Bill Meade of Dallas, a bakery executive. Among other churchmen who attended were such persons as radio commentator Paul Harvey, Chrsstianity Today Editor Harold Lindsell, Campus Crusade Director Bill Bright, Fellowship of Christian Athletes Director Jim Jefferies, World Vision Director Stan Mooneyham, and others. Most of those attending would have "no comment" on the briefing, saying that Graham told them the briefing was "off the record. In Dallas, however, Criswell, immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Con- vention, held a press conference following the briefing, saying he endorsed President Nixon's plan to visit Red China. Criswell told the Baptist Press that he had asked Kissinger if he could quote him on his answer to a question Criswell had asked concerning U.S. support of Israel, and that Kissinger had said flatly, "Yes." Criswell added that since Kissinger's other remarks were generally known, he did not feel what little he said to the press would be damaging. Asked if he endorsed President Nixon's trip to Peking, Criswell replied, "Yes, and I feel doubly that way after the briefing. "It is unthinkable,' Criswell said, "That we could blind our eyes to the fact that Red China is here. Red China is an astronomical fact. He cited 800 million inhabitants which he said soon would grow to one billion. RELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE DOMESTIC SERVICE -18- FRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1971 SOUTHERN BAPTIST LEADER REPORTS ON WHITE HOUSE CHINA BRIEFING By Religious News Service (8-13-71) DALLAS (RNS) A former president of the Southern Baptist Conven- tion announced here that he has changed his views of President Nixon's planned trip to China and is "in. sympathy" with the administration's foreign policy. Dr. W.A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist church, here said that he recently had a two-hour White House briefing which included a meet- ing with Dr. Honry Kissinger and a brief talk with the President. "The real enemy of America now is Russia," claimed the Baptist clergyman in an interview with the Dallas Times Horald. He also said that the White House briefing informed him that the real issue in the world was "the war in the Middle East, rather than Vietnam or Red China." The closest the U.S. came to war in recent years was in 1970 when Syria invaded Jordan and Egypt was preparing to help Syria with Russia's encouragement, said Dr. Criswell. The Baptist pastor has repeatedly voiced his support of Israel. Dr. Criswell clains that the situation in the Middle East "confirms what the Bible says -- that the final confrontation will be there." The White House briefing attended by Dr. Criswell was also attended by Evangelist Billy Grahan, news commentator Paul Harvey, Holiday Inns president William Walton, and Jarman Shoe Company executive Maxey Jar- man, among others. "I think the group gathered was chosen by Billy Grahan, Dr. Criswell stated. Though he is a resident of North Carolina Mr. Grahan is a member of Dr. Criswell's church. Dr. Criswell added that he believed the President's trip to China was "not a spur of the moment decision, but a planned policy toward which they ve been working several years." trying "The administration is / to face the reality of the growing power of Russia, " the minister continued. "Eighty per cent of the arms in Tietnam come from Russia. One hundred per cent of the arms in the fiddle East are from Russia." Dr. Criswell further stated that "it is an awesone enemy which only knows the language of brute force." The White House visit gave him "broader insights and a deeper understanding of American foreign policy," the pastor stated. "The Communists, with increasing success, are trying to isolate America." "We have learned with sad experience that we cannot militarily protect the whole world, Dr. Criswell concluded. We have also learned with heavy hearts that welfare programs and gifts of money will not solve the woes of the nations in the world. We have learned that the only way a nation can be helped is through political stability." -0- PAGE -18- Colson THE WHITE HOUSE EYES ONLY WASHINGTON September 14, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: H. R. HALDEMAN FROM: CHARLES COLSON SUBJECT: Monitoring of Democrats I don't believe that we are doing an adequate job of monitoring the likely Democratic opponents or perhaps I just don't know where to go to get the information. For example, I have been trying to get my hands on the transcript of Muskie's press conference last week to get the precise wording of his busing statement but have thus far not been able to get it. I've raised with Nofziger the question of having someone follow Muskie at all times with a tape recorder so that we get his off-hand remarks as well as his prepared remarks. Lyn says he hasn't got a budget for this. Maybe it shouldn't be done by Lyn anyway. Perhaps it should be done at 1701. The only point is it ought to be done. As another example, I have been trying to find out who attended the Muskie "fat cat" weekend in Maine last weekend. Apparently no one has been monitoring even this kind of information which it seems to me is invaluable. One man could very easily check the airports and quickly determine who was coming in and out that weekend. I don't know who this is assigned to but I think it is becoming an increasingly urgent requirement. Someone should have the responsibility and should see that it is done and done well. Republican National Committee. Thomas B. Evans, Jr., Co-Chairman August 30, 1971 PERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR: The Honorable H. R. Haldeman FROM: Thomas B. Evans, Jr The attached summary copy of the Delaware poll was sponsored and paid for by private citizens and partisan groups in Delaware. The interviews were conducted in late June and early July which, of course, was prior to both the China announcement and the President's dramatic economic initiatives. We are now able to measure attitude and opinion change during the July-August period with a panel study in which we re-interview the earlier sample. This can be done at very little cost and if you would like us to proceed, please let us know. I would like to discuss this with you briefly by telephone in the near future. TBEjr/mb Attachment Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500. MARKET OPINION RESEARCH DELAWARE STATEWIDE STUDY (Volume I -- Analysis) August, 1971 MARKET OPF ON RESEARCH FOREWORD Purpose The purpose of this study was to assess voter opinions on a broad range of national, state, county and city issues at a time between elections, July 1971. Additionally, the study identified perceptions of elected officials at national, state, county and city levels and tested the ballot strength of a number of potential 1972 candidates. Study Dr n Personal interviews using a structured questionnaire were conducted with a representa ive sample of 601 registered voters in the State of Delaware. Interviewing was done in the end of June and early July 1971 by professional interviewers under the direction of Market Opinion Research, Detroit. The sample was a probability-propertionate- to-size sample based on occupied dwelling units acco ding to the 1970 U.S. Census figures for Delaware. MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Sampling error on a sample of this size at the 95% fidence level is + 4.1%. This means that when a figure is cited in the sample, the probability is 95 out of 100 that this figure is within + 4.1% of the true figure among registered voters in Delaware. As a check on the sample, respondents reported vote for President in 1968 was checked against actual figures for Delaware: Actual Respondents' Vote Recall of Vote 1968 (Those Who Voted) 100% 100% Nixon 45.1% 51.8% Humphrey 41.8 41.3 Wallace 13.1 6.9 Although the figure for Nixon is slightly high and the figure for Wallace slightly lov, over-time recall tends to move slightly to and the winner. Comparison by census statistics for Delaware on race in the adult population showed the sample well within error limits: Census Sample 100% 101 Negro/black 12.9% 11.0% White and other 87.1 87.3 Not stated -- 1.7 : MARKETO: ION RESEARCH For purposes of analysis the sample was divided: Total 601 100% By Voting behavior at Past State and National Election Republican 193 32.3% Ticket Splitter 172 28.6 Democrat 194 32.1 Marginal 42 7.0 By County City of Wilmington 108 18.0 New Castle excluding Wilmington 313 52.1 Kent 87 14.5 Sussex 93 15.4 By Age 29 and under 90 14.9 30 39 138 2.9 40 19 9 230 38.2 60 and over 136 22.6 By Income 0 - $4,999 96 16.0 $5,000 - $9,999 197 32.8 $10,000 - $14,999 142 23.6 $15,000 and over 87 14.4 By Education Less than high school graduate 197 32.8 High school graduate 227 37.8 More than high school graduate 165 27.5 B Date of Int. * Before June 29, 1971 131 21.8 June 29 an.: after 4,0 78.2 * Note: It should be kept in mind that those interviews that were done before and after June 29 do not represent matched samples. The Governor's messa C to the legislature simply hamened to occur in the middle of the interviewing. Because 0: his, the before-and-after interviews are compared to the total sample in terms of voting, behavior following MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Total Before 6/29 After 6/29 601 Republ ican 32.3 29.8 32.8 Ticket splitter 28.6 29.8 28.4 Democratic 32.1 38.2 30.6 Marginal 7.0 2.2 8.3 MARKET OPINION RESEARCH ISSUES National The Asian War receives the most mention as the most important problem facing the nation at the present time, just as it did in a poll of Delaware voters last September. It is also named by the largest percentage as the "single most important problem." The war gets particularly high mention from young voters. The second ranked problem is cost of living and the economic structure, as it was last fall. Compared to last fall, there is a marked drop in the mention of racial integration, pollution/ecology, and youth unrest as important I ntioned problems. Most Important Problems Facing Our Nation Named as Important Problem (Multiple Named as Single Answers Allowed) Most Important Problem % Mention % Mention % Mention % Mention July 1971 Sept 1970 July 1971 Sept 1970 War/Asian conflict 61.6%* 60.8% 42.6% 38.5% Cost of living/Economic structure 26.5 30.2 10.3 7.0 Drugs/Dope/Narcotics 25.0 18.2 9.3 5.8 Racial problems/Integration 16.3 27.7 5.2 11.5 Crime 12.0 17.2 2.3 5.0 Unemployment 11.5 - 3.8 Youth unrest/Gene tion gap 8.3 17.3 3.0 6.2 Pollution, .cology/Smog/ Overpopulation 8.3 26.0 1.8 9.0 Taxes 6.0 -- 1.3 Administration/Leader.hip 5.5 -- 2.3 -- : All othersless than 5% mention. *75.6% mention among voters age 29 and under. MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Voters were asked to rate nine selected national problems on a 0-10 scel, on which the more important they considered the problem, the higher a rating they were to give it. This measure is one of intensity and it is significant that, when the voters are rating the relative importance of a series of issues to them, both drugs air' inflation move ahead of Vietnam. It is also signifi- cant that unemployment emerges only in middle of the list in Delaware when it is per gived as one of the most important issues nationwide. When this data is analyzed in terms of voting groups, Republicans rate inflation as the most important problem while ticl: : splitters rate Vietnam as more important than inflation and equally as important as drugs. Rate how important a problem each one is at this time? 10- extremely important, 0=extremely unimportant Voter Type County Total Rep. T-S Dem. Wil. N.C. Kent Sussex Drugs 9.0 8.8 9.0 9.5 9.1 9.1 8.9 9.0 Inflation/Cost of living 9.0 9.0 8.8 9.3 9.1 9.0 9.0 8.9 Vie am 8.9 8.8 9.0 9.1 8.8 9.0 8.9 8.8 Crime 8.9 8.7 8.8 9.2 8.8 8.9 8.7 9.0 Unemployment 8.5 8.1 8.2 9.0 8.4 8.5 8.3 8.4 Air/11 pollution 8.0 7.9 7.8 8.3 7.3 8.3 8.1 7.8 Racial proble is 7.9 7.7 7.8 8.4 8.0 7.5 7.5 8.1 Health care 7.7 7.1 7.7 8.4 8.1 7.8 7.4 7.2 Civil/Student unrest 7.5 7.1 7.3 8.3 7.3 7.6 7.6 7.6 2 - MARKET OPINION RI SEARCH Over lalf of all voters perceive the nation as worse off than it was two or three years ago, and this attitude is more prevalent among Democrats than among Republicans or ticket splitters. Only 16% think the nation is better off while 22% think it is in about the same shape. Generally speaking. do you think the United States as a nation is better or worse off the it was :0 or three y S ago? Voter Type County Total Rep. T-S Dem. Wil. N.C. Kent Sussex Better off 16.0% 22.8% 12.2% 11.9% 8.3% 18.8% 17.2% 14.0% Worse off 56.6 52.8 55.2 61.3 64.8 53.0 52.9 62.4 About the same 22.0 21.2 25.0 20.6 20.4 22.4 25.3 19.4 Don't know 5.5 3.1 7.6 6.2 6.5 5.8 4.6 4.3 Main reasons given among the 56.5% The 16% who think the nation is 1.0 think the nation is worse off better off said: are: War 29.7% War situation is better 39.6% In lation/Economy 17.4 Economy improving/Coping Unemployment 13.2 with inflation 13.5 Drugs in U.S. and Vietnam 12.1 Country is holding its Not enough money in own 12.5 circulation/Sp. Young people facing expenditures 10.6 problems/Less college No crime control/l demonstration: 8.3 enforcement 10.0 People' attitudes 10.6 U.S. im. qe slipped in relation with other countries 8.2 - 3 - MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Vietnom Given three plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the Vietnam situati 1, half of respondents choose: "Continue to withdraw troops but with no fixed deadline." In a second question as to whether some troops should remain until all P.O.W.s are released, there is extre ely strong support for leaving some troops until the P.O.W.s are freed. This is particularly strong in Kent and Sussex Counties (79%) and among Republicans (71%). Of the 3 different plans the U.S. could follo in dealing with Victnam, which ( do you prefer? Voter Type County Cty. City N.C. of less Total R.P. TS Dem. Marg. Wilm. Wilm. Kent Sussex Withd ew all U.S. troces immediately 21.1% 17.1% 19.8% 24.7% 28 5% 27.8% 17.6% 21.8% 24.7% Withd, / all U.S. trou, by 12/31/11 21.6 21.2 27.3 18.0 16.7 20.4 22.0 27.6 16 1 Continue to with- draw troops but with no fixed deadline 50.7 56.5 48.8 47.9 45.2 37.0 54.6 47.1 57.0 Don't know 6.5 5.2 4.1 9.3 9.5 14.8 5.8 3.4 2.2 - 4 MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Which of the allowing two plans in dealing with Vietnam are you most in favor 01? Voter Type County Cty. City N.C. of less Total Rep. T-S Dem. Marg. Wilm. Wilm. Kent Sussex Retaining some forces in South Vietnam until all P.O.W.s are released 65.9% 71.0% 64.0% 63.4% 61.9% 54.6% 62.0% 79.3% 79.6% Withdrawing >11 our troops regardless of P.O.W. situation 16.3 13.5 17.4 17.5 19.0 18.5 17.9 10.3 14.0 Don't know 17.8 15.5 18.6 19.1 19.0 26.9 20.1 10.3 6.5 Del ware Issues According to the respondents surveyed, the most important problems facing Delaware are financial. This is a change fro. September 1970 when they named ecology and racial problems as the top two issues, and this change appears to be only partially as a result of the recent financial problems in Dover. Even among those interviewed before the Governor's special message to the General As embly, finances and unnecussary sp nding were the most freque tly mentioned problems. The frequency of mention of finances did, however, double after June 29, 1971. Prior to then it was mentioned by 21.4% as an important problem facing Delaware but after the 29th 42.1% mentioned it as an important state problem. None of the other issues mentioned appear to have been affected by this incident. As an i sue, state finances are of much greater importance to Republicans (41%) and ticket splitters (45) than Democrats (27%). - 5 - MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Personal Financial problems including inflation, taxes, and the cost of living are the main problems facing Delaware voters and their families. Mention of finance-related issues far exceeds any other concerns and greatly outstrips personal concern about the war. Naming of financial problems is even higher among respondents in high income families than in those with the lowest incomes. Nearly one-fifth of respondents, however, say their family has no problems. What are the most important problems you and your family are facing at the present time? (Multiple mentions allowed) Income Total 0 - $5,000- $10,000- $15,000 Sample $4,999 $10,000 $14,999 and over Inflation/Cost of living 28.5% 21.9% 28.9% 30.3% 40.2% Finances/Money problems 20.6 18.8 24.4 22.5 17.2 Taxes 12.8 6.3 12.7 15.5 11.5 TOTAL FINANCIAL 61.9 47.0 66.0 68.3 68.9 Other Problems Named: Health 6.3 7.3 6.6 2.1 8.0 Unemployment 6.3 11.5 6.1 4.2 6.9 War/Vietnam 5.2 5.2 3.6 5.6 8.0 Drugs/Drug abr e 5.5 4.2 3.6 9.2 5.7 Education/Cut in education budget 5.0 1.0 1.5 9.9 9.2 Raising a family 4.3 1.0 5.6 2.8 4.6 Crime 4.8 5.2 3.0 7.7 3.4 None/No problems 18.5 29.2 16.8 14.8 12.6 Don't know 10.8 8.3 10.7 7.7 12.6 All others less than 3% mention. : - 15 - MARKET OPINION PESEARCH Asked which of their problems the government should help them solve, 30.8% of voters say "none, no problems." Those who think the government should help them name primarily financial problems inflation/cost of living (22.3%), finances/money problems (16.3%) and taxes (9.3%). Named next is war/Vietnam with only 4.0%. Despite this large concern about money, most respondents said their family was as well or better off as a year or two ago. This may indicate that even though many people have more money today than they did a year or two ago, continuing inflation and unemployment have made them apprehensive about the future. Expectedly, more of those with incomes over $10,000 felt better off while more of those in the lowest income group felt wrse off. Income groups are probably the main explanation of why Democrats and those in the City of Wilmington expressed more feeling of being worse off (23.2% and 28.7% respectively) tha did the total sample (20.5%). Overall, are vou and your family better off. worse off or about in the same situation as you were a year or two years ano? Income Total 0 - $5,000- $10,000 $15,000 Sa ble S. 999 $10,000 $14,999 and over Better off 30.3% 17.7% 25.4% 47.9% 40.2% About the same 46.4 44.8 48.2 38.7 47.1 Worse off 20.5 35.4 21.8 11.3 12.6 Don't know 2.8 2.1 4.6 2.1 -- : - 16 MARKET OPINION RESEARCH PRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON Ballot Strength President Nixon was run on a series of secret ballots against Senator Muskie, Senator Humphrey, and Senator Kennedy both with and without George Wallace on the ballot as a third party candidate and with and without Vice President Agnew on the ballot. When the Vice President was included on the ballot with the President, Senator Jackson of Washington was run as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate with each of the three Democratic pro idential candidates. Without Wallace on the ballot and without any Vice Presidential candidate the President runs slightly behind Kennedy (4%), virtually even with Humphrey and alread of Muskie (8.8%). When Wallace is added to the ballot, the President runs even with Kennedy, slightly ahead of Humphrey (3%) and well ahead of Mus ie (15%). In Delaware Wallace draws his support about equally from ticket spliter and Democrats but gets virtually no support from Republicans. The introduction of Vice President As :W as the President 's running mate and of Henry Jackson as the Democratic candidates running mate adds from 5% to 103 net to the President's vote against all of the potential Democratic candid. 13' both with and without Wallace on the ballot. The difference between Agnew being on the ballot and not being on the ballot is clearly with, Republicans. - 17 - MARKET OPINION RFSI ARCH The President's committed vote with Republicans increases markedly when Agnew is added to the ticket while there is a negligible effect with ticket splitters and Democrats. Perhaps the most significant finding in the presidential data is that there is an extremely high undecided vote, approaching 50% on several of the test ballots. This abnormally large undecided appears to be a true undecided as a number of the undecided voters were questioned in detail about their choice for President and the vast majority said that they didn't know whomthey would vote for. Furthermore, many of them indicated that they were not very excited about any of the potential candidates. There were also indications that there is a low level of believabil ty that any President can or will improve the situation in most of the major national issue areas. - 18 - MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Presidential Ballots Total Rep. T-S Dem. Wilm. N.C. Kent Sussex Nixon 33.07 65.3% 30.1% 5.4% 29.1% 33.3% 34.9% 34.8% Muskie 24.2 10.9 28.8 33.0 34.5 22.2 25.6 17.4 Undecided 42.8 23.8 41.1 61.6 36.4 44.4 39.5 47.8 Nixon 34.0 63.4 35.6 6.3 30.9 34.0 41.9 30.4 Muskie 19.9 9.9 20.5 27.7 30.9 16.7 23.3 15.2 Wallace 3.9 2.0 5.5 4.5 -- 2.5 9.3 8.7 Undecided 42.2 24.8 38.4 61.6 38.2 46.9 25.6 45.7 Nixon-Agnew 38.0 75.0 32.3 8.5 20.8 46.4 40.9 27.7 Muskie-Jordan 25.4 13.0 25.3 40.2 47.2 15.2 34.1 25.5 Undecided 36.6 12.0 42.4 51.2 32.1 38.4 25.0 46.8 Nixon-Agnew 36.3 67.4 35.4 8.5 22.6 43.7 34.1 29.8 l'uskie-Jackson 23.7 13.0 20.2 40.2 45.3 15.2 27.3 23.4 Wallace-LeMay 6.8 5.4 8.1 6.1 3.8 4.6 9.1 14.9 Undecided 33.2 14.1 36.4 45.1 28.3 36.4 29.5 31.9 Richard ilixon 23.5 43.6 27.4 4.5 21.8 22.2 32.6 21.7 Hubert Humphrey 24.5 11.9 17.8 40.2 34.5 24.7 23.3 13.0 Undecided 52.0 44.6 54.8 55.4 43.6 53.1 44.2 65.2 Nixon 23.5 42.6 27.4 4.5 20.0 23.5 30.2 21.7 Humph: y 20.9 10.9 13.7 33.9 36.4 19.8 16.3 10.9 Wallace 2.3 -- 4.1 3.6 -- 1.2 7.0 4.3 Undecided 53.3 40.5 54.8 58.0 43.6 55.6 46.5 63.0 Nixon-Agnew 31.2 58.7 30.3 6.1 18.9 37.7 250 29.8 Humphrey-Jackson 21.7 5.4 24.2 39.0 35.8 20.5 13.6 17.0 Undecided 47.1 35.9 45.5 54.9 45.3 41.7 61.4 53.2 Nixon-Agnew 28.1 51.1 30.3 3.7 22.6 32.5 22.7 25.5 Humphrey-Jackson 19.7 5.4 21 2 35.4 35.8 19.2 15.9 6.4 Wallace-LeMay 3.7 4.3 4.0 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.3 10.6 Undecided 48.5 39.1 44.4 58.5 39.6 45.7 59.1 57.4 Richard Nixon 23.5 44.6. 26.0 4.5 18.2 24.7 23.3 26.1 Edward Kennedy 27.5 11.9 20.5 43.8 45.5 19.8 34.9 26.1 Undecided 49.0 43.6 53.4 51.8 36.4 55.6 41.9 47.8 Nixon 23.9 41.6 31.5 4.5 18.2 25.3 25.6 23.9 Kennedy 22.9 10.9 13.7 37.5 45.5 14 23.3 21.7 Wallace 2.3 -- 4.1 3.6 -- 1.9 7.0 2.2 Undecided 51.0 47.5 50.7 54.5 36.4 57.4 44.2 52.2 Nixon-Agnew 30.8 55.4' 32.3 7.3 22.6 37.7 25.0 23.4 Kennedy-Jackson 22.0 8.7 27.3 29.3 47.2 13.9 13.6 27.7 Undecided 47.1 35.9 40.4 63.4 30.2 48.3 61.4 48.9 Nixon-Agnon 29.2 51.1 30.3 8.5 24.5 34.4 27.3 19.1 Kennedy-Jackson 19.3 7.6 21.2 26.8 43.4 11.3 15.9 21.3 Wallace-LeMay 4.1 4.3 5.1 2.4 1.9 2.6 2.3 12.8 Und Jed 47.5 3.0 43.4 62.2 30.2 51.7 54.5 46.8 1 I 19 MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Perceptions of President Nixon The percentage of Delaware voters who approve of the way President Nixon is handling his job currently runs 50.2%, while 32.3% disapprove and 11.5% have no opinion. Ticket splitters are close to the sample average, while Republicans and Democrats are expectedly widely spread. While this is a quite favorable rating, it is down slightly from the September 1970 Delaware poll. At that time the President's approval rating was 62.3% and his disapproval 25.0%. Do you approve or disaprenove of the way President Nixon is handling his job? Voter Type County Cty. City N.C. of less Sample Ren. T-S Dem. Wilm. Wilm. Kent Sussex Apr ove 56.2% 77.2% 55.8% 36.1% 38.9% 61.7% 56.3% 58.1% Dis approve 32.3 16.6 33.1 47.9 38.0 30.4 33.3 31.2 Don't know 11.5 6.2 11.0 16.0 23.1 8.0 10.3 10.8 Th reasons given by the more than half who approve are: Doing what he can/Trying to do : good job 44.4% Improving Victnam War 15.7 Inherited problems/Left with a mes: 6.5 Little cooperation from Congress (5 Good as any me /Been a good President 6.8 Sincere/Honest 5.9 All others less than 5% mention 1 - 20 - MARKET OPINION RESEARCH The one- third who disapprove say: War policies/Not acting fast enough 22.7% Doing a poor job 17.0 Unemployment/Unomployment caused by foreign trade 9.8 Hasn't provided dynamic leadership 7.2 Talks a lot but doesn't come to the point 7.2 Inflation/Not facing our economic situation 6.7 Dishonest/Insincere 7.2 Not for the common man 7.7 All others less than 5% mention Asked in what area Nixon has done his best job, the highest and only significant mention is "Vietnam" (34.3%). Nothing elsé gets even 5% mention. In the 3-4% group are "increase in social security," "air pollution "foreign affairs," "makes people feel secure," "health care/medicare." Asked in what area Nixon has done his poorest job and the highest mention is "not controlling inflation" (19.8%). Next comes "Vietnam" (16.8%), "unemployment" (10.0%) and "racial disorders" (6.5%). Separate questions were asked about each of a list of issues as to whether President Nixon's actions on the issue caused the situation to become better or worse. A majority perceive he has improved the situation by his actions on Vietnam, health care, air/water pollution, civil/student unrest. More perceive that he has made the situation better than see it as made worse with regard to racial problems. The perception that his actions : - 21 - MARKET OPE TON RESEARCH have made situations worse rather than better is in the area of drugs, crime, unemployment, and inflation/cost of living. Interestingly, Republicans, ticket splitters, and Democrats all agree, although to different degrees, on the areas which the President's actions have improved or worsened the problem. While income or education do not discriminate in this data, age is an important variable. In those areas where the President is perceived as having improved the situation, younger voters tend to approve of his actions at a rate greater than the total sample. Conversely, on those issues hat the President is perceived as having done a poor job, older voters (60 and over) are much more negative than the total sample. This is particularly true of the unemployment, crime, and drugs. - - 22 MARK! OPINION RESEARCH Did resident "ixon" actions in these at cause the situation to bec better vor ? Voter Type County Cty. City N.C. of less Total Rep. T-S Dem. Marg. Wilm Wilm. Kent Sussex Vietnam Better 60.1% 77.2% 57.0% 45.4% 61.9% 47.2% 63.6% 57.5% 65.6% Worse 28.0 15.5 29.7 39.2 26.2 44.4 20.1 34.5 29.0 Don't know 12.0 7.3 13.4 15.5 11.9 8.3 16.3 8.0 5.4 Health Core Bector 58.4 65.3 62.2 49.5 52.4 52.8 52.7 71.3 72.0 Worse 24.6 17.1 23.8 32.5 26.2 32.4 25.9 18.4 17.2 Don't know 17.0 17.6 14.0 18.0 21.4 14.8 21.4 10.3 10.8 Air/Mater Pollution Better 58.2 67.9 57.6 50.5 52.4 46.3 59.4 62.1 64.5 Worse 27.1 19.7 28.5 32.0 33.3 38.9 22.4 25.3 31.2 Don't know 14.6 12.4 14.0 17.5 14.3 14.8 18.2 12.6 4.3 Civil/Student Unrest Better 51.2 57.5 51.2 47.4 40.5 48.1 54.6 49.4 45.2 Worse 34.8 28.5 36.6 38.7 38.1 41.7 28.4 36.8 46.2 Don't know 14.0 14.0 12.2 13.9 21.4 10.2 16.9 13.8 8.6 Racial Problems Better 47.9 57.5 44.8 42.8 40.5 38.0 46.6 57.5 54.8 Worse 38.3 28.0 43.0 42.8 45.2 51.9 34.5 36.8 36.6 Don't kn 13.8 14.5 12.2 14.4 14.3 10.2 18.8 5.7 8.6 Drugs Fatter 34.3 36.8 31.4 33.0 40.5 33.3 38.0 34.5 22.6 Worse 51.2 49.2 53.5 52.1 47.6 58.3 40.6 56.3 74.2 Don't know 14.5 14.0 15.1 14.9 11.9 8.3 21.4 9.2 3.2 Crime Better 32.8 43.5 27.9 24.2 42.9 25.9 32.6 47.1 28.0 Worse 50.2 38.3 52.9 60.3 47.6 62.0 42.8 47.1 64.5 Don't know 17.0 18.1 19.2 15.5 9.5 12.0 24.6 5.7 7.5 Unemployment Better 22.6 29.0 22.1 17.5 19.0 14.8 20.8 35.6 25.8 Worse 62.2 52.8 65.1 69.6 64.3 75.0 59.4 58.6 60.2 Don't know 15.1 18.1 12.8 13.9 16.7 10.2 19.8 5.7 14.0 Cost of iving 4 D. or 23.8 9.9 7.2 16.7 13.9 16.0 11.5 9.7 Worse 75.2 62.2 83.1 81.4 73.8 80.6 68.7 85.1 81.7 Don't know 10.8 14.0 7.0 11.3 0.5 5.6 15.3 3.4 8.6 - 23 - MARKET OPINION RESEARCH Finally, 40.6% of voters think a change of national administration would be good for the country, 32.9% think it would be bad and 26.5% are undecided. Not unexpectedly, party past voting behavior identifies who thinks it would be good to change (18.1% of Republicans, 55.7% of Democrats and 48.3% of ticket splitters) and who thinks it would be bad (56.0% of Republicans, 18.6% of Democrats and 26.7% of ticket splitters). The number of voters who think that a change of administration would be good for the country is greatest, predictably with young voters (46.7%), and decreases as age increases. The number who think a change would be bad remains fairly constant among the various demographic groups. & - 24 - MARKET OPINION RESI ARCH VICE PRESIDENT ASNEW In Delaware 7.9% of voters approve of the We, Vice President Agnew is handling his job end 0.0% disapprove. He has majority approval from both Republicans (67.9%) and ticket splitters (53.5%). By areas he has 38.9% approval in th City of Wilmington, 50.2% in New Castle outside the city, 54.0% in Kent and 45.2% in Sussex Counties. His disapproval is higher than the overall 28% only with Democrats (38.1%) and in the City of Wilmington. Over half of those who approve of Agnew do SO because he "says what he thinks/ eaks his mind" (55.2%). Next highest mentions are "does his best" (12.8%) and "makes people think/interested in people" (6.9%). fifth of those who disapprove of him do SO because he "talks too much/loud mouth" (19.6%). Other reasons are: "should use discretion/ no tact" (10.1%), "not doing anything" (15.5%), "don"t like him" (11.9%) and "atvitude towards the press/fights with press" (6.5%). Two further questions were asked concerning the Vice President's att on the press and the believability of the media. Over half of those surveyed think Vice President Agnew's attacks on the press have been justilied. I 1 25 MARKET OI INION RESEARCH Have Vice President Agnew's attacks on the press been just ified or not? Total Sample Rep. T-S Dem. Justified 53.4% 68.4% 59.9% 35.6% Not justified 21.3 19.2 21.5 23.7 Don't know 25.3 12.4 18.6 40.7 Asked their own perception of the accuracy of the information they receive in newspapers, on radio and TV, most respondents me it as about half accurate and half inaccurate. This was similar among all voting behavior groups and in the various areas of the state. How ao mate is the information you receive in newspapers, on radio and TV? Mostly accurate 22.3% About half accurate/Half inaccurate 60.6 Mostly inaccurate 8.3 Don't know 8.8 Forty-two percent (42%) of Delaware voters (57.0% of Re: blicans, 45.9% of ticket splitters, and 26.3% of Democrats) think President Nixon should :p Vice President Agnew as. his running mate for 1972. Twenty- six percent (26%) say he should not, and the remaining 31.9% "don't know". There are no major differe ces from the sample as a whole in ar of the demographic breaks on this question. 4 - - 26 - - THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Date: To : Phoymath Stacha From : L. Higby ok cl dox A believe he coold pay been 29,000. W latdon feb male? : THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Date: 9/17 TO: Long FROM: GORDON STRACHAN -freiclers AA is making 122-24,000. -Roe oole Irandles office - Kalmbach's protege, management." = Ken Talmadge, is being magrider suggested to 3 -magrider has been advised the Hill problem. of the theft of secretaries from MEMORANDUM THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON September 15, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: LARRY HIGBY FROM: GORDON STRACHAN G SUBJECT: Magruder's Administrative Assistant Jeb Magruder has been authorized by the Attorney General to hire an Administrative Assistant to work directly with Jeb at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President. The prime candidate is Bob Herrema, whose resume is attached. Herrema is a close friend of John Clark in Fred Malek's office. I talked with Herrema yesterday, and he is a personable, outgoing, aggressive type. My only reservation is one which I relayed to John Clark and Magruder to the effect that someone with political connections on the Hill might be inappropriate for a sensitive role in the campaign. The alternative prospect is Curt Herge from the law firm in New York. Magruder is leaning towards Herrema and my inclination is Herge. Do you have a suggestion? No I thought Robb alle was his AA. I can't believe that Waicher would give of his AA or that Magrueler can What all are going to do to Colson or ther. pay him the 29,000 that on Weiches A.A make. Remicabe the problems we had with surpaing recretaries RESUME ROBERT L. HERREMA Address: 10318 Democracy Lane, Potomac, Maryland 20854 Phone: (301) 299-8395 Personal Data Born: July 18, 1939 Dependents: Married (2 daughters) Rochester, New York Military: Classified 3-A Height: 6'1" Weight: 185 lbs. Employment History U. S. Senate Administrative Assistant to Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-Conn.) January 1971 to present. Job Responsibilities: Serve as principal assistant and alter- ego to the Senator. U. S. House of Representatives Administrative Assistant to Congressman Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-Conn) May 1969 to January 1971. Job Responsibilities: Manage Congressional offices in Washington and Connecticut; represent the Congressman at various official, civic and social functions; coordinate projects of significance to organi- zations and individuals in Congressional District; consult with Congressman on legislation; maintain liaison with Congressional Committees, state and Federal agencies. The George Washington University, Washington, D. C. Assistant Director of Personnel Services, December 1965 to May 1969. Job Responsibilities: Recruitment - establish and maintain recruitment resources; develop recruitment programs and materials. Employment - supervise four personnel interviewers; review and improve forms, policies and procedures regarding applicant intake and correspon- dence, interviewing, reference-checking, selection and placement. ) Benefits - supervise four employees in the administration of employee benefits for 3500 academic and non-academic staff. Personnel Records - develop forms, systems and procedures for an automated personnel in- formation system. Collateral Duties: Serve on two advisory committees in formulating personnel policies for the university and hospital; assist in union contract negotiation; advise and assist department heads and supervisors in staffing, organizational structure, and other personnel matters; assist in developing orientation and training programs for staff members; assist in developing and maintaining a job classification - salary administration plan for 3000 non-academic personnel in the hospital and university. Robert L. Herrema Resume (cont'd) 2. The George Washington University Personnel Assistant, September 1964 to December 1965. Job Responsibilities: Supervise two Benefit Assistants; administer employee benefits for non-academic staff; coordinate related projects as assigned by the Director. Sigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, National Headquarters, Richmond, Virginia Assistant Director of Chapter Services, January 1964 to September 1964. Job Responsibilities: Recruit and train new staff representatives; initiate reports and communications in the areas of chapter housing and finance; assist in the administration of a loan fund for chapter housing; develop and revise manuals for teaching the techniques of chapter operation; assist in organizing and setting up leadership training schools for 350 alumni and undergraduate fraternity members. Staff Representative, July 1963 to January 1964. Job Responsibilities: Conduct management audits in 32 fraternity chapters throughout New England; develop and supervise the implemen- tation of programs to improve each chapter's operation; write reports and other communications necessary to follow up on chapter improve- ment programs; visit with deans and other college officials to monitor the chapter's relationship with the college; assist alumni groups in controlling the financial operation of each chapter. The Kordite Corporation, Macedon, New York Research and Development Technician, July 1, 1959 to August 1960. Job Responsibilities: Conduct experiments on clear plastic film in a physical testing laboratory; fabricate mechanical devices for use in pilot plant plastics extrusion studies; develop and report on methods of increasing production of tubular and lay-flat plastic film; employ drafting skills in designing apparatus used for pilot plant studies. Reason for Leaving: Re-enter college to obtain Bachelor's Degree. Eastman Kodak Co., Naval Ordnance Division, Rochester, New York Draftsman (co-op Program), Fall Quarter 1957 and Spring Quarter 1958. (Awarded secret clearance for involvement with Satellite Program) Education M. A. in Government (due upon completion of thesis) The George Washington University B. A. in Psychology with minor in Philosophy Marshall University, 1963 A. A. S. in Mechanical Engineering Rochester Institute of Technology, 1959 Robert L. Herrema Resume (cont'd) 3. College Related Recognition Selected for "Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities" and Omicron Delta Kappa (National Men's Leadership Fraternity). President of college fraternity and president of Inter-fraternity Council. Awarded medals for achievement in intercollegiate and amateur wrestling tournaments. Political Activities Young Republican National Leadership Training School Program Chairman 1970 Assistant Program Chairman 1969 COMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT 1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W WASHINGTON. D. C. 20006 September 9, 1971 (202) 333.0920 CONFIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL Attached is a report by David A. Keene on the YAF convention which he attended in Houston, along with Tom Huston, at our request. JEB S. MAGRUDER Attachment CONFIDENTIAL is OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT WASHINGTON September 8, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: JEB MAGRUDER FROM: DAVID A. KEENE Oak SUBJECT: YAF CONVENTION I am sure you already have a pretty clear idea of the results of last week's YAF convention in Houston. We did not come out of the affair as well as I had hoped we might, but I do think we managed to do about as well as we had a right to expect. As I indicated before we left for Houston, there is a good deal of hostility toward the President in YAF. We never expected to get a favorable reaction from the delegates, but we did want to show them that we are still interested in their views. We succeeded in this goal and even managed to moderate the proceedings to some extent. The resolutions as reported to the convention by the Resolutions Committee were relatively moderate. I would describe them as "responsibly critical" and most of them passed on the floor without much uproar. However, the convention did insist on beefing up the so-called "Manhattan Twelve" statement by deleting the final two paragraphs. This action moved beyond the conservative leadership and put YAF in a position of greater hostility toward the Administration. The "mock nominating convention" held on Saturday evening was a disaster for all involved. The delegates had three favorites- Governor Reagan, Senator Buckley and the Vice President- but more than twenty names were placed in nomination. The YAF leadership evidently decided at some point to go with the Vice President. JeD May, 408, This decision was opposed, however, by many delegates who believed that the White House wanted the Vice President to win as a means of blunting the impression OF total hostility toward the Administration. This belief was strengthened by rumors that Steve Shadegg and possibly Dave Jones were attending as White House operatives and urging delegates to support the Vice President. The delegates resented this as well as Shadegg's alleged offer to, in effect, buy off Chairman Ron Docksai. This resentment combined with a particularly inflammatory speech by former YAF National Chairman, Robert Bauman, set the stage for the Saturday night debacle. You may recall that, when I talked with you prior to the mock convention, I said that we were dealing with a paper house, but that we didn't have too much to worry about if no one set it ablaze. Well, Bauman was the arsonist. The YAF leadership had also decided to place the President's name in nomination so that they could embarrass him. We attempted to stop this without much success, and instead, the kids supporting him announced that they considered the Vice President's nomination a show of support for the Administration. The "mock convention" was, of course, a frivolous exercise without much meaning in itself. However, it did give the delegates an opportunity to demonstrate their distaste for the Administration and its programs at this point in time. The emotionalism of the evening can be explained by the fact that many of the kids participating worked in the '68 campaign and now feel betrayed. The significance of their discontent lies in the fact that they reflect, admittedly in exaggerated form, the feelings of many other conservatives. In this respect, they pose a problem both for us and for senior conservative leaders who cannot afford to get too far away from their supporters. People like Senator Goldwater are already beginning to lose credibility within the conservative movement because of their loyalty to the President, while others are moving steadily to the right of the President to avoid this problem. I have said in the past that I believe we would be fooling ourselves if we adopt the attitude that this discontent is going to go away. It isn't going to. On the contrary, unless we move to do something about it, we can expect it to get worse. The problem, of course, is that most of their objections are of a substantive nature. This is particularly true in the areas of defense, wage and price controls, and welfare. YAFers are violently opposed to FAP and wage and price controls. There is no way in which they can be either sold on them or convinced to ignore them. And they, like their senior advisers, are afraid of our apparent strategic slippage. Given these problems, however, there are still some steps we might consider: 1. There are few identifiable "movement" conservatives in the Administration, and this is a point of contention that comes up whenever conservatives meet. 2. Many conservatives feel that we are simply not interested in their views. I know that some attempt is being made to increase our communications with the right, but I feel this effort should be stepped up. A little attention here could go a long way in 1972. 9/14 Chapen, cwc, S Bull, J8M 1) people don't know what strategy is -0' Donnell 2 only top spokes to media center -there are guidelines 2) O'Donnell - the men in sched Don't know: a) when comp starts up to Convention, non - poe events cwc continue "admin events" non per events chra conver 1201 handle per events. add man to cwc for 2 mas under O' Donnell then to 1201 Don't schedule form and 1701 CONFIDENTIAL September 14, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: H. R. HALDEMAN VIA: DWIGHT L. CHAPIN AN LNG FROM: STEPHEN BULL 6-102 By EP 3-24-82 RE: Scheduling of Senator Goldwater and Other Surrogate Candidates A memorandum dated September 2nd from Mr. Haldeman to Mr. Chapin directed the establishment of a procedure for working with Senator Goldwater's schedule and assigning advance support to him. The imple- mentation of such a program immediately introduces a much broader subject with which we will have to deal in the very near future, namely, the total program for surrogate candidates. In fact, since the September 2nd memorandum, Secretary Connally has been added to the list of those who should be supported by an advanceman. Therefore, the subject of this memorandum is intended to be: 1. General discussion of the manner in which Administration speakers (i.e., surrogates) are currently handled. 2. What the various recommendations are from staff members as well as officers at the Citizens Committee headquarters. 3. A concensus recommendation for the establishment of a surrogate program. By way of a personal disclaimer, I am setting forth some observations that may be rather naive since I have approached this subject rather superficially because of the lack of information readily available as well as the time requirement for this report, and have attempted to proceed without stirring up too much confusion by my inquiries. The lack of hard information available, I believe, is the result of the necessity for secrecy at this point. I assume that many of the questions and approaches have been thoroughly discussed and probably many of the elements already resolved in personal discussions between Mr. Haldeman, the Attorney General and the President. However, the decisions have not been reduced or otherwise transcribed to written form, and those with whom I discussed the subject of the surrogate program either were not aware of these decisions or the information had not filtered down to them. - 2 - Present Speakers' Program Currently all turndowns of invitations to the President that have any significance or potential are referred to Pat O'Donnell in Chuck Colson's office by Dave Parker. Pat O'Donnell subsequently evaluates the invitation and considers an appropriate Administration spokesman to fill the speaking engagement. The evaluation is done pretty much solely by Pat and, according to him, his criteria include many elements such as whether the event is in a key State, type of event, the media area, etc. At this point Al Snyder and Van Shumway become involved, Al arranging for appearances on TV shows in the area where the event is to be held, and Van arranging for newspaper interviews with the Administration official. The Administration spokesmen are limited to members of the White House staff (approx. 8), OMB (approx. 3), members of the Cabinet (approx. 12), members of the Sub-Cabinet (approx. 20), occasionally Senator Dole, and occasionally some outsiders, e.g., Pat Moynihan. Although Pat O'Donnell is the scheduler and titular head of the speakers' program, Dick Howard is the supervisor and, according to all sources, is the true backbone of the operation. Without getting into an evaluation of personalities and individual abilities, the job of making effective use of Administration spokesmen, even now during this "non-political" and relatively inactive time, can and should be done better. When we get into the campaign situation which is rapidly approaching, the amount of activity will be multiplied manyfold. Currently I discern a lack of overall strategy to the manner in which the speakers' program is operated. Specifically, there is no guiding philosophy that seems to dictate who should go where and why except for where the President is concerned. This conclusion was arrived at quite simply; when asked what the guiding philosophy was, no one could give me one. Possible Approaches to a Surrogate Program In 1968 John Whitaker, who scheduled Candidate Nixon, also scheduled the surrogates. An individual was assigned the task of actually running the surrogate candidates, and second and third string advancemen were used to serve these surrogates. In 1970 Nick Ruwe operated the surrogate program which was less complex than that of 1968 and depended more on Administration spokesmen. : - 3 - In a discussion of a surrogates program, John Whitaker laid forth the basic philosophy that the principal objective should be to find an event for the appropriate spokesman for an appropriate area, and let that event be the vehicle to get him into the area. Once in the area, however, the event becomes secondary to a more important operation which would be to give the surrogate the widest exposure which can usually be obtained by getting him on TV talk shows, special interviews with the newspapers, and all of the things that we are supposedly doing now with our current speakers' program. In a memorandum I received from Dwight Chapin on September 13, the comment was made that "everyone is trying to stake out his claim to handle the scheduling operation of surrogates and Cabinet members over the next few months". This may be one of the better understatements. Additionally, there seems to be a bit of wrestling over where the surrogates program will be run. John Dean has expressed to Colson and others that the campaign be kept out of the White House and that only the President and Vice President be cuc desogree scheduled politically from here. He has even suggested the possibility that the First Family be scheduled out of 1701. This plan would go into effect after the official kickoff of the campaign, presumably after the first of the year. Colson recommends that for a period of time, possibly they January 1, 1972, we continue operating the speakers' program as we have through O'Donnell and that setup, but that any Congressional spokesmen Do such as Goldwater and others that we will undoubtedly pick up between now and January, be scheduled and operate from 1701. Colson's feeling events is that the White House is put in an awkward, if not untenable, position by making specific engagements for members of Congress, particularly P,UP, during this non-political year of 1971. As a commentary to this point, however, Dick Howard notes that the RNC, which normally schedules Fam, Congressmen, is a bit jealous of its prerogative in this area and might not take kindly to it. suns any ong admin - 4 On July 28 Jeb Magruder submitted a memorandum for the Attorney General, copy of which was submitted to Mr. Haldeman, setting forth a preliminary recommendation for "SPOKESMEN RESOURCES", which is, in effect, the 1972 surrogate program. The recommendations in this memorandum are summarized as follows: 1. Cabinet, selected agency heads and White House staff members be scheduled in the Colson/O'Donnell operation for the remainder of 1971. 2. The President and Vice President continue to be handled separately. 3. Colson hire a new staff man to train with O'Donnell and then move over to 1701 in 1972 and operate Spokesmen Resources from there. 4. RNC handle Congressmen until the end of 1971. There are many other minor elements in that memorandum none of which seem to be of particular consequence to the development of a and Trained witst well-defined coordinated surrogate program. 3 Recommendation for a Surrogate Program Edward This is where I may be overstepping my bounds and getting myself into trouble, but it appears to me that the overall campaign strategy is still obscure to the operatives, i.e., the Magruders, the Howards, the Porters and the O'Donnells who have been charged with the responsibility for planning some of the specific tactics for campaign '72. A surrogate program should be one of the major tactics directly related to the overall strategy. By the end of 1971 the President will probably have visited all 50 States and, from what little I have learned about what will be the President's posture during the campaign, there will be emphasis on major TV appearances, much less personal campaigning than in 1968, and much of the campaign period will be spent being the President as opposed to being the candidate. This means that the personal appearances will be through the surrogates in the key States. cwc - sun different when income us. non-ineme. 58m - Sun repeace P this time inbeg d pol + goo't events. - 5 - Considerations for Surrogate Program 1. "Key States" is a fluid entity that will probably be readjusted as the campaign develops. For planning purposes in the formulation of the surrogate program, those States, and perhaps specific areas within the somewhat larger States, need to be specified to those who will operate the program. The Magruder memo to the Attorney General lists 21 States as "key States". I have also heard the figure 14. One of the questions is --where should be the area of emphasis. includes primary st's 2. The aforementioned memorandum provides a listing of potential surrogates, utilizing four categories: "Cabinet", "White House Staff", "Agency Heads", "Others". There is no category for Congressmen or Governors, although I would assume that there are still one or two Republican Governors left over who could 0701 Rocke do us some good (e.g., isn't Rockefeller lobbying for Secretary of Defense these days?). The list that is submitted, I presume, will undoubtedly be modified and is probably intended as a first draft. At some point in the near future, however, we need to get a firm list of Governors and Congressmen who can fill the role of surrogate for the President. 3. Scheduling - there appear to be two major types of scheduling for surrogates: (a) Opportunity Scheduling - an event for which a specific man is appropriate for a specific function (e.g., Senator Goldwater to the YAF Convention). (b) Creative Scheduling - finding an event that acts as a vehicle to get the proper spokesman into the right area so that he, with the support of the Snyders, Shumways and the advance operation, can maximize his exposure through the regional media as well as our established techniques of promotion and communication. : - 6 - 4. That individual or group responsible for scheduling the surrogate must be fully familiar with the overall strategy, the points of strength and weakness in the various areas, and the availability of the surrogate so that maximum benefit from the event of the surrogate visit can be realized. 5. Right now the talent and resources are in the White House and 1701 is incapable of providing the necessary support to operate a full fledged surrogate program. Specific Recommendations for Surrogate Program 1971 1. Between now and January 1, 1972, Chuck Colson operate the surrogate program through its speakers' bureau program (O'Donnell and Howard). Approve Disapprove G 2. Assuming that the campaign will require an increase in personnel to administer such a program, additional people who will ultimately serve in a supervisory role during the campaign be hired now (but be paid by 1701 due to the wage-price freeze) and work with those individuals administering the speakers' program. The purpose would be to learn how to run a surrogate program while beefing up our existing speakers' bureau. Approve Disapprove G 3. Senator Goldwater and other key primary surrogates such as selected Governors and others outside of the Administration would be scheduled and coordinated through the speakers' bureau for the remainder of 1971. Those events appropriate for this select group would be determined by the speakers' bureau operation, but would be nominally set up through 1701 in order to maintain the appearance of detachment between the political operation and the White House. In actuality, however, coordination, supervision and implementation would be effected through the speakers' bureau operation. As a concession to the RNC, they could be called upon for their assistance in schedule planning and responses to correspondence and other relatively harmless activities. Approve Disapprove G : : - 7 - 4. A full effort be made to coordinate with the key personnel at 1701 all of the activities that will be taking place at the White House until 1972. This would include providing full information on the Presidential activities. Approve Disapprove 5. Ron Walker has a sizeable list of advancemen, some of whom are untested, others who are not ready to be lead advancemen. Ron would make these advancemen available to the speakers' bureau now for support of not just Senator Goldwater and Secretary Connally, but others as well. This would provide training for the new advancemen and better results on the road for the surrogates. Approve Disapprove 6. Progress reports and evaluations of appearances would be submitted by the administrator of the speakers' bureau (Chuck Colson) to Mr. Haldeman directly. Approve Disapprove 1972 1. Effective around the first of the year we admit that there is a campaign going on, and that those support personnel in the White House who have been administering speakers' programs be detached, eleminated from the White House payroll, and transferred over to 1701 where they will operate the campaign. Those individuals who had been training with O'Donnell and others administering the speakers' program would move over to 1701 for the program operation. Approve Disapprove 2. That 1701 administer the scheduling and advance support of all of the surrogate candidates with the exception of the President, the Vice President, and Mrs. Nixon. The remainder of the family would be scheduled through 1701. Approve Disapprove THE WHITE HOUSE have see reviewed state on WASHINGTON August 16, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: H.R. HALDEMAN FROM: GORDON STRACHAN G SUBJECT: Andrew Glass/National Journal Article on Polling Of primary importance in the attached issue of National Journal is the Andrew Glass article on polling which I suggest you read. As to possible sources of information about the current polling operation and future plans, discussions were held with Magruder, Dent, Evans, Marik, Derge, Benham, DeBolt, O'Neill, and Grassmuck. Discussion with Magruder developed the following interesting notes: 1) Magruder talked with Glass in a "general, non- substantive manner". Glass indicated that he had talked to all six vendors, some of whom (he would not disclose which) were fairly free with the information; 2) Magruder knows that both Ed DeBolt and Bill Low at the RNC talked with Andrew Glass. Magruder called DeBolt after receiving the call from Glass. Magruder "instructed DeBolt to talk with Glass only in very general terms". Magruder called Tom Evans to indicate his distrust of Bill Low; 3) Magruder does not know whether Glass talked with Lyn Nofziger; 4) As my memorandum of August 3 (copy attached at Tab A) indicates, Glass talked at some length with Tom Benham; 5) Magruder believes Glass may have received information from Tully Plesser among the vendors; Derge, Marik, and O'Neill did not talk to Andrew Glass. -2- Tom Evans did not talk with Andrew Glass. He asked DeBolt and Bill Low if they had. Both told Evans they had not. DeBolt, however, said that Bill Low might have. In any event " (a) GOP official" is quoted on page 1697. Harry Dent talked with Glass but told him that no polling was done in the White House. He referred him to Citizens with the quote on page 1695. Grassmuck doesn't know Glass and most of the information in the article came as a surprise to him. One interesting fact emerges -- there is no mention of Peter Flanigan, who as Chairman of the Attorney General's research task force, has overall responsibility for interviewing the polling vendors and developing a research recommendation for consideration by you and the Attorney General. All interview sessions were originally scheduled in his office but hastily changed to the Citizens. Flanigan attended four of the six meetings. He is the only one directly involved who is not referred to in the article. You received a letter dated August 10 from Andrew Glass. He complains that I did not return his calls. A suggested response for your signature is attached at Tab B. To prevent future leaks I have emphasized to all the importance of referring reporters inquiries to Ron Ziegler or Herb Klein. Their matter raises the whole quation of the Press policy of the Citizene Operation. you should discuss thinwith the A.G. and get some firm ground ruler established NW. Right paper pls. ; Political Report/Pollsters prowl nation as candidates use opinion surveys to plan 72 campaign by Andrew J. Glass From the White House to small-town secrecy, currently is seeking to define "You're finding more people run- 8/14/71 1693 NATIONAL America, the political pollsters are polling needs for Mr. Nixon's 1972 ning for political office with less polit- JOURNAL once more on the prowl. campaign. ical experience than ever before. So © CPR 1971 A National Journal survey of po- In addition, the President requests they really don't have an intuitive base litical pollsters and their clients reveals and receives regular "weathervane" of how well they'll do. They don't that the business which, like politics polls that are commissioned for him have the knowledge of their state that itself, is as much an art as a science- by friends and admirers, mainly in the a guy who has been in politics a long is deeply rooted in the campaign proc- business world. Similar polls were time has. But they know enough that ess. It revealed also that many can- taken on a regular basis for Presidents they need to know. So the pollsters didates still are reluctant to say pub- Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson. are all selling." licly how heavily they rely on polls. But the political polling profession At its higher rungs, the polling pro- Like people who never walk under does not subsist alone on surveys fession remains a tight-knit group. It ladders even though they say they are taken by the White House or by the divides, almost equally, into those not superstitious, candidates go on President's Democratic rivals. who poll only for Republicans, those buying the polls. With the approach Robert Teeter, the White House who poll only for Democrats and those of the 1972 national elections, spend- liaison man for Detroit-based Market who poll for both. ing for political surveys is likely to Opinion Research, a Republican-ori- But, as pollster Michael Rowan match or exceed 1968 levels. ented polling firm, said: "One of the said, "we're all one club." In his book, Financing the 1968 big changes we're seeing is the level Nixon Election (D.C. Heath and Company, down to which polling is used. 1971), Herbert E. Alexander estimated "It used to be that there were a few In seeking the Presidency in 1968, that spending for public opinion polls sophisticated gubernatorial and sena- Richard Nixon spent about $500,000 for all candidates at all levels in 1968 torial campaigns using it. Now, almost for the longest, most costly and most came to $6 million. all of them are in it. Many Congress- complex polling project in campaign The estimate, based on 1,200 polls men use it. And it pops up in state history. Although there is no real which cost an average of $5,000, is legislatures and in city races." battle for the nomination in sight, the conservative; one comprehensive state- Oliver A. Quayle III, who has taken Nixon White House has budgeted wide poll can cost $15,000. polls for most of the Democrats now $500,000 for polling research for the Top to bottom: The White House re- in the Senate, said: "It's now almost 1972 campaign. ceives a steady stream of public opin- SOP. If you're interested in what Organization: In the White House it- ion survey results. Some of them are people think, this is the best way to self, the gathering of poll information commissioned, directly or indirectly, find out. People who have never is supervised by H. R. Haldeman, the by the White House itself; others re- polled before are polling now. It's President's chief of staff, who has a sult from "piggybacking" - adding standard procedure." background in advertising and market questions to polls already commis- The "new breed": A veteran Demo- research. (For a report on Haldeman, sioned by Republican candidates or to cratic campaign manager believes the see No. 10, p. 513.) polls taken for other purposes. pollsters' growth is based in part on a Campaign planning beyond the A campaign task force, working in new breed of politician. As he put it: White House gates is being handled POLL PROCESSOR RANDOM ANALYST SAMPLES POLL TAKER KNOW INTERPOLATOR NEWS MEDIA POLITICIANS John huehnergath 1694 8/14/71 NATIONAL JOURNAL Gallup and Harris: The Published National Polls © CPR 1971 The chart at top right traces per cent President Nixon's shifts in popu- 70 larity, as measured by the Gallup approve GALLUP Poll. On each occasion, some 1,500 persons, the normal national sam- ple, responded to the question: "Do 60 you approve or disapprove of the way Nixon is handling his job as 50 President?" The bottom chart covers the same time period and traces the trend in trial heats between Mr. 40 Nixon and Sen. Edmund S. Mus- kie, D-Maine, as measured by the 30 Harris Survey. (Gov. George C. disapprove Wallace, D-Ala., was included in the trial heats; his support ranged 20 from 9 to 13 per cent.) Dots along the lines show the dates of the surveys. Parallel gray bands show the maximum extent of 10 1969 1970 1971 sample error. George H. Gallup and Louis Harris respectively head the only 70 HARRIS polling organizations that regularly publish political survey results on a national scale. Both Gallup and 60 Harris maintain extensive private Nixon polling operations, which account for the bulk of their revenues. They 50 do not accept political clients. The Gallup Poll, first published in 1935, now is syndicated and goes 40 Muskie twice a week to some 100 U.S. newspaper clients. The Gallup Opinion Index, a 32-page booklet 30 that is published monthly, offers detailed breakdowns of Gallup polling data. It has about 1,000 20 subscribers. The Harris Survey, syndicated by the Chicago Tribune, goes to 10 1969 1970 1971 125 U.S. newspaper clients. The Harris column first appeared in ing with undecided voters and non- tion near the close and another di- 1963 and is mailed twice a week to voters. The variations in their tech- rect question at the close. The subscribers. Harris also polls for niques, along with sample error, Gallup Poll asks one secret "ballot Time Inc. He plans to publish a account for the spread between box" question early in the inter- hardback, 500-page Harris Survey their estimates. view. Yearbook, which will carry data on The Gallup Poll samples all The Gallup Poll is prepared in which his column is based. adults of voting age and then ex- Princeton, N.J., by the American The normal lag between inter- cludes likely nonvoters. The Harris Institute of Public Opinion, a firm views and publication in newspa- Survey does not interview people headed by Gallup. pers for both Harris and Gallup is who say they are not registered and The Harris Survey is prepared in two to three weeks. excludes them from its sample. A New York by Louis Harris and As- In forecasting Presidential elec- further exclusion of unlikely voters sociates Inc. The Harris firm was tions, both Gallup and Harris is made later. bought in 1970 by Donaldson, Lu- strive to minimize the undecided The Harris interviews normally kin and Jennerette Inc., a stock vote in their interpretations and to last 90 minutes. Persons are asked brokerage firm which is publicly base their predictions upon esti- for their Presidential preference owned. The sale was for 80,000 mates of voter turnout on election three times in the course of the in- shares of voting common stock, day. The two pollsters, however, terview: a direct question at the worth about $720,000 at current employ differing methods in deal- start, a secret "ballot box" ques- market prices. : by Citizens for the Reelection of the The President and his top staff also 1968 for Mr. Nixon mounted by 8/14/71 1695 NATIONAL President, which is, in effect, a White have access to other private polls, con- Joseph Bachelder, who has since re- JOURNAL House political task force; by the Re- ducted for Republican senatorial or tired as a political polling consultant. C CPR 1971 publican National Committee; and by gubernatorial candidates as well as by Decision Making Information Inc., Attorney General John N. Mitchell. political pressure groups friendly to based in Santa Ana and Los Angeles, A coordinating committee is shap- the Nixon Administration. These polls which polled in 1970 for both Gov. ing the campaign research effort, are supplied without charge; the Chil- Ronald Reagan, R-Calif., and Gov. which will rely heavily on public opin- ton surveys are underwritten by the Nelson A. Rockefeller, R-N.Y. ion surveys. Republican National Committee. Market Opinion Research of The committee includes Jeb S. A pollster who declined to be quot- Detroit, which advised George Rom- Magruder, who has been detached ed by name said, "A lot of the (White ney early in 1968 to scuttle his cam- from the office of Herbert G. Klein, House) work that was done in the past paign for the Republican Presidential director of communications for the three years was done by individual nomination. The company has done executive branch, to manage the "Cit- candidates who were doing it as an some weathervane polling after Mr. izens" operation; Robert Marrick, accommodation." Nixon's television appearances. Magruder's associate in the "Citizens" The White House intends to repay Opinion Research Corp. of Prince- office; Gordon Strachan, a personal some of these favors during the 1972 ton, N.J., which handled the 1960 and staff assistant to Haldeman, and Ed- campaign. A Presidential aide, speak- 1968 Nixon campaigns, as well as the ward S. DeBolt, the RNC's deputy ing for "background," said: "When 1964 Presidential campaign of Sen. chairman for research and political Nixon is ready to go into an area, an Barry Goldwater, R-Ariz. (ORC's organization. offer for a 'piggyback' (poll) will be billings from political clients in 1968 The Nixon campaign steering com- made. I think in almost every case, it amounted to $600,000-$450,000 from mittee also is utilizing an outside con- will be the Nixon White House that the Nixon campaign.) sultant on polling techniques-David will offer it down rather than its being David Derge, although a regular R. Derge, 42, a political scientist and offered up (to the President)." White House visitor, did not attend executive vice president of the Uni- Campaign firms: The White House the presentation sessions, which were versity of Indiana in Bloomington. scheduled a series of meetings Aug. held in the offices of the "Citizens" Magruder is the key polling plan- 9-11 to review the capabilities of more group, one block from the White ner. As Harry S. Dent, special counsel than a half-dozen Republican-oriented House. Derge is known to be a strong to the President for political affairs, polling firms. partisan of ORC. put it: "In this shop, Jeb is the guy "All of them were approached with Split verdict: A decision on the allo- who's the polling man." the idea of contributing to the cam- cation of polling resources for the Magruder declined to comment for paign as a sole or prime contractor," campaign is expected to be submitted publication on polling or on any other said a White House political aide. to the President for his review and aspect of White House campaign "But it's not inconceivable that approval by the end of August. planning. One official, who asked to Haldeman will decide 'I don't want Whether or not a prime polling con- be identified only as an Administra- any one person to know everything, so tractor is chosen, a White House of- tion spokesman, said: "We don't want I'm going to parcel it out and these ficial said that polling arrangements to get into even what we're thinking people can just like it.' He's like that." for the 1972 campaign may not emerge about doing They (the Democrats) Another White House official noted in a clear-cut manner. know something is going on. Let them that "the Nixon campaign is being or- The official said: "Knowing the find out by working for it." ganized on a priority basis and there- President, he never puts all his mar- White House polls: Mr. Nixon has fore the need for national pollsters is bles in one basket. He will want had access to a steady stream of pri- minimized." The emphasis, he said, additional head-to-head and special- vate polling information since he took will be on disregarding those states issue polling. office. These polls have kept the Pres- where there is "no opportunity" and "He never even tells anybody about ident abreast of domestic political concentrating on the big electoral it. But you always have somebody on moods and furnished him with insights states "which will either win or lose the side who will do a weathervane into changing trends on such questions the election for us." sampling after a (Presidential) night as the public attitude toward admis- Each of the polling concerns which on television. That's just Nixon. sion of the People's Republic of China made presentations to the White All of us get used to that. There's al- to the United Nations. House was screened in advance by ways an edge." An almost continuous polling effort Haldeman. The group includes: Another White House official who for the White House has been con- Cambridge Opinion Studies Inc., will be involved in the campaign, also ducted, in secrecy, by Chilton Re- headed by Tully Plesser and based in speaking privately, said that, in all search Services, of Philadelphia, a di- New York City. Plesser's political probability, some of the more sensi- vision of Chilton Co. An aide to the polling assignments have ranged from tive polling results will go to the Pres- President said, "The outside pollster Sen. W. E. Brock's successful cam- ident directly, perhaps through Halde- (John H. Kofron, Chilton's senior vice paign in Tennessee last year to John man, without being circulated to the president) consults almost always di- V. Lindsay's uphill mayoral campaign White House political staff. rectly with Haldeman, although on a in New York in 1969. "There are some things-like how nonsensitive matter he may talk with Chilton Research Services, which does Agnew affect the ticket-that Strachan or Higby." (Lawrence M. conducts its surveys by telephone from might be asked that even Mitchell Higby is Haldeman's administrative Philadelphia. Chilton also handled the won't get," the official said. (Mr. assistant.) mechanics of an intelligence effort in Nixon's choice of Spiro T. Agnew as 1696 8/14/71 NATIONAL A Candidate Looks at His Polls JOURNAL © CPR 1971 In an interview with National professionals in this business that Journal, Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey, have a great professional reputation D-Minn., reflected upon the role at stake. that polls played in his unsuccessful 1968 Presidential campaign and in In 1970, we used polling very ef- his 1970 Senate campaign: fectively. I started early. In fact we had one of our early polls in hand In 1968, we were so damned months before I even declared. We short of money that we didn't use took it simply to see what the re- polls as much as I think we should actions might be and what the is- have. Had we used them a little sues might be. better, I think I might have been a In other words, I wanted to little more effective. know myself: Did I have political Which is another way of saying, strength and where did I have it? if you're not just looking at how Then, we also had in that first popular you are as a candidate, but (Oliver A.) Quayle poll a number of rather are using the polls to base issues that we wanted to get a re- your public attitudes on public is- sponse to, sues, I think you can become a One of the things that I found more effective candidate. You at in the polls, for example, that al- least have the means of being one. ways intrigued me was the tre- mendous support we had among The polls can also show your young people-running as high as areas of weakness. It gives you 80 per cent support within this time, if you take them early enough, group. I didn't believe at first I to repair those areas if it's at all could have so much support in the possible. It also shows your areas 21-25-year-old group. But it of strength that you can be sure of became obvious afterwards that I and other areas that you need to did. buttress and maintain. I noticed that when we'd go into It takes time to do polling that's neighborhoods where there were effective. If we had the time and many young married couples how the money, we would have been well we would do with them. In much better off, particularly where the elections, the young married Hubert H. Humphrey it comes to issues. couples stuck with us, so the polls For example, I know that in '68 verified themselves. tion of whether he likes you or not. we had some gut reactions on the It builds a bandwagon effect. It law-and-order issue. But we didn't Also, you would think in a state creates a political atmosphere. have an in-depth understanding of like mine, in Minnesota, that the its intensity. Even though I worked agricultural and economic issues Actually, the politics of polls at it, I didn't start early enough. I might be paramount. can be most important of all. also think we might have been able But we found that there were If they're favorable to you, or if to detect age-group differences and other issues that were much more they show you with a how each group reacts. overriding than merely the eco- if you're not ahead- the trend nomic issue. Like the law-and-order seems to be coming your way, then It's all a question of what you issue, for example. And we acted it has a tendency to build its own ask for. And what you ask for is on that information. momentum. oftentimes determined not only by It really is almost better than what you want but what you can af- So, I'm a great believer in the use spot announcements (commercials) ford. of polls as a tool-providing that on television. It's a kind of political In order to use polls really ef- you're willing to spend the money advertising in its own right. fectively, you need to take a series to get a first-class job. You must of them depth. not deal with amateurs in this busi- As Humphrey noted in connection The man or the firm that does ness. with his 1968 campaign, an impor- that kind of polling has to be very I think John Kennedy used polls tant test of a Presidential campaign sophisticated in terms of the kind very effectively. When he got a poll is the depth and breadth of its re- of questions which evoke honest, that was a plus for him, he used it search effort - which, to a large de- objective answers. You've got to to build further support. gree, relies on public opinion sur- be careful that you don't set up I think this can be done today. veys. The Senator as yet has not questions that give you answers If a county chairman sees you're commissioned any new polls to test that you want. ahead in the polls, he tends to say, the appeal of his candidacy for So you really have to deal with "Well, he can win." It isn't a ques- President in 1972. his Vice Presidential running mate in 8/14/71 1697 NATIONAL 1968 was influenced by ORC polls which showed him running better Establishing the Tolerances JOURNAL © CPR 1971 alone than with any possible "name" Pollsters commonly encounter skeptical members of campaign teams in the Republican Party. Mr. Nixon who suggest that by interviewing more people- or perhaps another set of decided to bypass better-known per- people- the pollster would have produced different results. sonalities for Agnew, who was then George H. Gallup, founder of the Gallup Poll and now semi-retired, Governor of Maryland.) has an answer for these skeptics: "The next time you go to the doctor for Utility: Although White House of- a test, why not have him test all your blood?" ficials seek to dampen publicity on Gallup says that "no major poll in the history of this country ever went their polling efforts, they say privately wrong because too few people were reached." But, he says, many have that polling information, while in gone astray because of the way those persons were selected. plentiful supply, does not play a crit- Samples: Some political pollsters, including Gallup, interview people in ical role in White House political de- randomly chosen clusters, using what is known as a probability sample. cision making. (For his nationwide poll, Gallup conducts about five interviews in each of "Nixon has never had much use for 320 voting precincts, chosen on a random basis.) polls," a personal friend of the Pres- Others use a quota sample, a less costly technique in which people are sident said. "He only pays attention chosen to be interviewed on the basis of specific characteristics in the when they happen to agree with his same proportion as they appear in the population or whatever "universe" gut feelings. And he likes situations the pollster is studying. If 12 per cent of the "universe" is Negro, for ex- where the polls do not put him under ample, a quota sample would include 12 Negroes in every 100 people pressure, such as his Agnew decision interviewed. of 1968." Gallup and other published pollsters abandoned quota samples after A GOP official agreed with this 1948 when polls taken that way indicated that Thomas E. Dewey would assessment and added: "Most of those defeat Harry S Truman in the Presidential race. people (the White House staff) just Error: A probability sample permits the pollster to measure sample error look at the head-to-head results-at the maximum extent to which the survey results may differ from a sur- just two numbers. It's very sad. Most vey of the entire population. Quota samples do not permit statistical of them just flip to the last page (of measurement of error. the polling report) to see, in summary, The tables below indicate the range of error for samples of various how we are doing." sizes. Statistically, the error will be no larger than the figures in the tables Democrats 95 per cent of the time. As the figures indicate, the size of the sample must be increased as much as four times to cut the margin of error by half. Of Mr. Nixon's potential Demo- Table I shows the maximum plus and minus- probability cratic opponents in 1972, only the cur- samples of varying sizes and division. The larger the sample, the smaller rent front-runner, Sen. Edmund S. the error; the more evenly people divide, the higher the possible error. Muskie, of Maine, is now engaged in In comparing two percentage results, another question arises: How polling research. Most of the other large must the difference be for it to reflect a genuine distinction, beyond Democratic Presidential hopefuls have the range of statistical error? so far given little or no thought to Tables II and III show the number of percentage points to be dis- commissioning public opinion surveys counted in comparing differences in polls. Table II is used for percentages for their campaigns. near 20 (or lower) and 80 (or higher); Table III is used for percentages Muskie: "People have been waiting near 50. around for our polls before moving," Thus, if 50 per cent of those interviewed in 1969 and 40 per cent in 1971 said Anna Navarro, 24, the Muskie responded in the same way to a question, Table III can be consulted to campaign's full-time polling consult- determine whether the difference is statistically meaningful. ant. "The question is how to project what people want to see." Table I (size of sample) 1,500 1,000 750 600 400 200 100 An initial round of telephone- Results near 10% 2 2 3 3 4 5 7 interview polling for Muskie was com- Results near 20% 2 3 4 4 5 7 9 pleted in late July by Independent Results near 30% 3 4 4 4 6 8 10 Research Associates Inc., a Wash- Results near 40% 3 4 4 5 6 8 11 ington-based firm headed by William Results near 50% 3 4 4 5 6 8 11 R. Hamilton, who has worked mainly Results near 60% 3 4 4 5 6 8 11 for Democrats in the South. Before Results near 70% 3 4 4 4 6 8 10 Results near 80% 2 3 4 4 5 7 9 joining the Muskie staff in January, Results near 90% 2 2 3 3 4 5 7 Miss Navarro worked for Hamilton. Media While it is unusual to have Table II: Percentages near 20, 80 Table III: Percentages near 50 a pollster on a campaign staff, Miss sample 1,500 750 600 400 200 sample 1,500 750 600 400 200 Navarro said she felt the arrangement 1,500 4 4 5 6' 8 1,500 5 5 6 7 10 benefited the Senator. She saw her 750 4 5 5 6 8 750 5 6 7 7 10 role as the "realist" the person who 600 5 5 6 6 8 600 6 7 7 7 10 400 6 6 6 7 8 400 7 must "knock down theories and pre- 7 7 8 10 200 8 8 8 8 10 200 10 10 10 10 12 sent unpalatable news." In that capacity, Miss Navarro has SOURCE: Paul K. Perry, president of The Gallup Organization : 1698 8/14/71 NATIONAL JOURNAL The Ethical Dilemma: Politicians vs. Pollsters © CPR 1971 In the spring 1963 issue of Public demic members, issued a standard ments as to 'what the polls are Opinion Quarterly, Louis Harris "which news media can utilize showing' while encouraging "the wrote: "The pollster who is knowl- when reporting poll results." Each reporting of whose poll using which edgeable about politics will inevita- of these news reports, AAPOR methods and (obtaining) what re- bly be invited to sit in on strategy said, should include: sults." meetings. (He) will more and the identity of the survey's spon- NCPP: In April 1968, George H. more be in a position of recom- sors; Gallup invited some 25 polisters mending when and how many polls a description of the sample, in- to attend an organizational meet- should be conducted for his client, cluding its size; ing in Santa Barbara, Calif., on the rather than simply waiting for the an indication of the allowance eve of the annual AAPOR confer- political powers-that-be to call that should be made for sample ence. The session led to formation him and set the timetable." error; of the National Council on Public Harris was writing from experi- a report on which results, if any, Polls, which at present has 16 mem- ence. In October 1959, he was one are based on only parts of the total ber organizations. of nine men who met with John F. sample (For example, some poll re- NCPP dues are $100 a year for Kennedy to plan Kennedy's 1960 sults may represent interviews only membership. The group's current Presidential campaign. (Harris with those persons who are likely to president is Robert T. Bower. went on to take polls for the Dem- vote.); director of the Bureau of Social ocratic National Committee until a statement of technique- Science Research, Washington, he started a newspaper column in whether the interviewing was done D.C. Its trustees are three poll- 1963.) in person, by telephone, by mail or sters-Gallup, Harris and Archi- Yet, a deep involvement with a on street corners: bald M. Crossley and Richard M. candidate's fortunes raises an eth- a statement on the timing of the Scammon, director of the Election ical dilemma for some pollsters, interviews, putting them in con- Research Center of the Govern- especially those who consider them- text with relevant events. mental Affairs Institute. selves social scientists, seeking to The AAPOR code applies both "As of now," Bower said, "there discover what motivates people, to polls which are prepared for is no evidence that a 'bandwagon rather than campaign consultants, publication and to polls taken for a effect,' induced by polls, influences seeking to get their candidate elect- private client whose results sub- the result of elections." ed. sequently are publicized. The group will issue a quarterly One pollster, Mervin Field, noted AAPOR members elect a stand- newsletter, starting this fall, aimed in a 1967 speech before his col- ards committee, which is charged at journalists and other users of leagues that "there is an implicit with investigating complaints of polls. As yet another way of pro- pressure to use the (polling) re- misuse of polls. It is currently moting more sophisticated evalua- search for other than purely objec- studying allegations of irregulari- tions, NCPP plans to sponsor sem- tive fact gathering. It is used to con- ties in published polls taken during inars for Senate aides, political vince financial backers, to encour- the Democratic mayoral primary in managers and newsmen, at which age party workers, to bolster the Philadelphia earlier this year. polling techniques will be analyzed. confidence of the candidate, to No individual ever has been cited Legislation: There have been a few freeze out potential opponents and by the standards committee for mis- attempts to enact laws to regulate to support existing biases." conduct, although the panel occa- polling, but none has succeeded. In this climate, Field said, a ma- sionally has met privately with poll- Rep. Lucien N. Nedzi, D-Mich., jor problem can arise over "the se- sters whose conduct was under ques- is sponsoring a Truth-in-Polling lective use of certain findings to tion. AAPOR's governing body, an Act (HR 5003), which has been create a misleading impression." executive council, is empowered to referred to the House Administra- Thus, "there are leaks to newsmen warn by a citation or to expel mem- tion Committee. for 'background,' and leaks to the bers, but it has never done so, Sid- The provisions of the Nedzi bill opposition to lull them or to steer ney Hollander Jr., a member of the parallel those of the AAPOR and them in a direction that will help AAPOR council and former chair- NCPP codes. (In one respect, the (the client)." man of its standards committee, bill goes further by requiring public AAPOR: In an effort to minimize said: "The mood of the organiza- filing of the percentage of inter- unethical conduct, the American tion is changing and they're in a views in the total sample that were Association for Public Opinion Re- position to be much tougher." completed and the percentage of search, founded in 1947, has set Irving Crispi, executive vice pres- persons in the sample who refused standards for reporting poll results. ident of The Gallup Organization to be interviewed.) An AAPOR code of ethics, and also a former chairman of the In March 1963, a bill aimed at adopted in 1960, calls upon mem- AAPOR standards committee, rigorous control of the publication bers to monitor release of the re- wrote in Polls, Television and the of any preelection poll passed both sults and to correct promptly any New Politics (Chandler Publishing, houses of the Texas legislature. It misinterpretation of their findings. 1970) that the 1968 code should was vetoed by Democratic Gov. In 1968, AAPOR, which in- dampen "the inclination of many (1963-69) John B. Connally, who cludes both commercial and aca- journalists to make blanket state- is now Treasury Secretary. ; 8/14/71 1699 been working closely with Robert D. "Since when did a 24-year-old kid "My own horseback judgment is NATIONAL Squier, 36, head of Communications know something?" said a veteran poll- that our supporters ought to be able JOURNAL Co. of Washington, D.C., and Mus- ster who works mainly for Democrats, to tell us what's on the minds of © CPR 1971 kie's media consultant. (For a report referring to Miss Navarro. "I couldn't people. Also, people are much more on Squier and the role of political handle a Presidential campaign when nationally oriented; you don't have media consultants, see Vol. 2, No. 40, I was 24. I think it's silly." the kind of Balkanization on issues p. 2135.) Another pollster remarked private- that you used to have." "Squier is involved in the whole ly: "Basing a major campaign on this Hart nevertheless said that the Mc- process," Miss Navarro said. "We type of information in a primary fight Govern forces probably would poll in work as a team and talk about what is a terribly risky thing to do, because Wisconsin and Oregon "to find out his data needs are. Polling is moving if Muskie falls on his face in Florida, what issues predominate" there. Hart more toward a media orientation be- he's not going to get up again. If they said, "I think that would be worth the cause people are getting their infor- are going to have a research program outlay. But that's January or Febru- mation through the tube." like that, how are they going to run ary." Meanwhile, she said, "The Senator the country?" Robert J. Keefe, administra- is always badgering us for informa- tion." Muskie plans to receive in-depth surveys from five or six primary states by January 1972. In addition, Muskie requires polling research on such po- litical questions as how closely should he affiliate himself with Chicago May- or Richard J. Daley, a controversial figure but a potential source of dele- gate support in Illinois. Telephone-The Hamilton firm uses a "tight screen," seeking to reach only persons who intend to vote in selected 1972 Democratic primaries. In upholding their telephone- based techniques, Hamilton and Miss Navarro explain how they attempt to Tully Plesser Robert Teeter Anna Navarro keep the sample unbiased and to es- Miss Navarro said: "It's too new, tive assistant and a top campaign tablish a good rapport during the half- and conventional wisdom says it's no planner for Sen. Birch Bayh, of hour interviews. The technique also good. Yet I have a gut feeling for what Indiana, said the Senator strongly be- costs about 60 per cent less than field I'm after; you have to know how to lieves in taking polls, but, in light of interviews of comparable size-a play with it." his "low-recognition profile, there's major consideration in the money- After the round of open-ended tele- not much point in taking them now." short Muskie campaign. phone questioning, Miss Navarro said Keefe said he had been "picking the For the Muskie polls, numbers are she is more convinced than ever that brains" of two pollsters, John F. gleaned from telephone directories in the system works well and will provide Kraft and Quayle, "both of whom are the areas to be surveyed and several the kind of data the Senator needs. trying to get our business." digits are changed before the call is The non-pollers: Other Democrats "When we go into (the Florida) pri- made. This ensures that unlisted num- who are either in or at the edge of the mary situation, we will poll three or bers will be represented in the sample. battle for the party's Presidential four months out," Keefe said. (In Los Angeles, 35 per cent of all nomination have not yet commission- Kennedy-"We have no reason to residential telephones are unlisted; in ed any private polling. The Demo- poll," said Richard C. Drayne, press New York, 20 per cent.) cratic National Committee, still in secretary to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, The Hamilton interviewers call back debt from the 1968 campaign, has no of Massachusetts. three times if no one answers; they do plans to poll, but David A. Cooper, "My boss reads polls rather avidly. not always interview the person who the DNC's director of research, said He's pretty good at interpreting them. answers the phone. They also employ he is prepared to offer technical poll- But we don't pull our own. There are a toll-free "verification number,' ing advice to any Democrat seeking other people who pull them for you, which most people ask for but which office in 1972. (None of the Presiden- or maybe send you results, but we've only a minority actually call. This tial hopefuls has contacted him.) not commissioned any. There's no keeps their rejection rate to 5 per cent. McGovern "We've seen some pri- point in paying $40,000 for a poll just Criticism In general, pollsters for vate polls that other people have to see whether you were right on an Democratic candidates have shunned done," said Gary W. Hart, campaign issue." telephone polling, and the Muskie director for Sen. George S. McGovern, Humphrey- the 1968 Presidential techniques have elicited criticism from of South Dakota. "The reason we're campaign, Hubert H. Humphrey, the established pollsters. They wonder, in not doing it is that, first of all, it's Democratic nominee, spent $262,000 private, whether Hamilton, who has too early and, second, it costs too on polls taken by Quayle and five been polling since 1963, can "go the much money and, thirdly, they won't smaller firms. distance" in a Muskie Presidential tell us anything we don't already Now that he is in the Senate, ac- campaign. know cording to Jack McDonald, his press 1700 8/14/71 NATIONAL JOURNAL Directory of Major Political Public © CPR 1971 A 1972 campaign manual prepared by Lawrence F. ket research and undertake political polls only in elec- O'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Com- tion years. mittee, states: "There is no campaign expense which On the other hand, Nimmo says, there are firms that should be approached with more care and investigation take a greater interest in their political than their com- than the selection of a pollster. mercial clients. "These firms provide the client with a "Each pollster develops and refines his own particu- written proposal, prepared in consultation with sam- lar methodology. Each will take a different view of the pling statisticians in complicated cases, which outlines candidate's needs and design a survey approach to what the pollster intends to do, how, and at what cost." meet those needs." O'Brien advises candidates who plan Listed below are the names, addresses and telephone to take polls to solicit proposals from at least three pro- numbers of 74 U.S. firms engaged in political public fessional organizations. opinion research on a regional or national basis. (The Another campaign handbook, The Political Persuad- list excludes part-time consultants and firms primarily ers, by Dan Nimmo (Prentice Hall Inc., 1970), notes engaged in campaign management.) The name and that many polling firms are primarily engaged in mar- title of each firm's principal officer are included. American Institute of Public Opin- ington, D.C. 20036; (202) 223- Jenkintown, Pa. 19046; (215) ion; Dr. George H. Gallup (chair- 4300. T# 886-1000. man); 53 Bank St., Princeton, Callahan Research Associates Inc.; Crossley Surveys Inc.; Franklin B. N.J. 08540; (609) 924-9600. *# William J. Callahan (president); Leonard (president): 909 Third Analytical Research Institute Inc.; 31 East 28th St., New York, Ave., New York, N.Y. 10022; Irving Gilman (president): 104 N.Y. 10016; (212) 755-5972. (212) 752-4100. S. Division St., Peekskill, N.Y. Cambridge Opinion Studies Inc.; Decision Making Information Inc.; 10566; (914) 737-8855. Tully Plesser (president); 625 Vincent P. Barabba (chairman); Harriet Andrews Research Serv- Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. Richard B. Wirthlin (president): ices Inc.; Harriet Andrews (di- 10022; (212) 759-2220. 2700 N. Main St., Santa Ana, rector): 4007 Falls Road, Balti- Cantril Associates; Albert H. Can- Calif. 92701; (714) 558-1321. more, Md. 21211; (301) 889-3805. tril (president); 1061 31st St. Farrell Research and Communica- Arizona Institute for Research; NW, Washington, D.C. 20007: tions Inc.; Fran Farrell Kraft Marian Lupu (field director); (202) 337-1600. (president); 30 6th St. SE, Wash- 100 East Alameda, Tucson, Ariz. Douglas H. Carlisle; 1100 Gregg ington, D.C. 20003; (202) 547- 85701; (602) 624-3880. St., Columbia, S.C. 29201; (803) 7081. Audits and Surveys Co. Inc.; Sol- 253-0406. Field Research Corp.; Mervin D. omon Dutka (president); One Center for Political Studies; Prof. Field (research director); 145 Park Ave., New York, N.Y. Warren E. Miller (director); Montgomery St., San Francisco, 10016; (212) 689-9400. Institute for Social Research, Calif. 94104; (415) 392-5766. Bardsley and Haslacher Inc.; Rob- University of Michigan, Ann First Research Co.; David Early ert L. Haslacher (president); Arbor, Mich. 48106; (313) 764- (president) 1451 N. Bayshore 422 Waverley St., Palo Alto, 2570. T# Dr., Miami, Fla. 33132; (305) Calif. 94301; (415) 326-0696. Central Surveys Inc.; William M. 371-3681. Barratt Market Research; Ruth C. Longman (president); P.O. Box John H. Friend Inc.; John H. Barratt (owner); 5415 N. Col- 100, Shenandoah, Iowa 51601; Friend (president); 261 N. Joa- lege Ave., Indianapolis, Ind. (712) 246-1630. chim St., Mobile, Ala. 36603; 46220; (317) 251-1119. Chilton Research Services (Chil- (205) 433-3786. Becker Research Corp.; John F. ton Co.); John H. Kofron (direc- Louis Harris and Associates Inc.; Becker (president); 675 Massa- tor); 56th and Chestnut Sts., Louis Harris (president); One chusetts Ave., Cambridge, Mass. Philadelphia, Pa. 19139; (215) Rockefeller Plaza, New York, 02139; (617) 868-0010. * 748-2000. N.Y. 10020; (212) 245-7414. * Belden Associates; Joe Belden Civic Service Inc.; Roy Pfautch Martin Hauan; 1100 Hotel Okla- (president); Southland Center, (president); 408 Olive St., St. homa, Oklahoma City, Okla. Dallas 75201; (214) 748-7188. Louis, Mo. 63101; (314) 436- 73101; (405) 236-0931. Benson and Benson Inc.; Lawrence 4185. Sidney Hollander Associates; Sid- E. Benson (chairman); Benson Corey, Canapary and Galanis; Dor- ney Hollander Jr. (president); Building, Princeton, N.J. 08540; othy D. Corey (president); 2 Pine 2500 Maryland Ave., Baltimore, (609) 924-3540. St., San Francisco, Calif. 94111; Md. 21218; (301) 467-8565. E. John Bucci Co.; E. John Bucci (415) 397-1200. C. E. Hooper Inc.; (a subsidiary of (president); P.O. Box 266, Dorothy D. Corey Research; Dor- Daniel Starch and Staff Inc.); Swarthmore, Pa. 19081; (215) othy D. Corey (president); 1705 Oscar B. Lubow (president); 544-5775. Victoria Ave., Los Angeles, Calif. Mamaroneck, N.Y. 10543; (914) Bureau of Social Science Research 90019; (213) 731-2414. 698-0800. Inc.; Robert T. Bower (direc- The CRC Group Inc.; Harry W. Independent Research Associates tor); 1200 17th St. NW, Wash- Rivkin (president); Beaver Hill, Inc.; William R. Hamilton (pres- : 8/14/71 1701 Opinion Firms in the United States NATIONAL JOURNAL © CPR 1971 ident); 4000 Albemarle St. NW, Tower Building, Little Rock, Response Analysis Corp.; Dr. Washington, D.C. 20016; (202) Ark. 72201; (501) 374-0605. Herbert I. Abelson (president); 362-5056. Joseph Napolitan Associates Inc.; 1101 State Rd., Princeton, N.J. Institute for Motivational Research; Joseph Napolitan (president): 08540; (609) 921-3333. Ernest Dichter (president); Al- 1028 Connecticut Ave. NW, Responsive Research Corp.; Peter bany Post Road, Croton-on- Washington, D.C. 20036; (202) K. Simonds (president); 7 Water Hudson, N.Y. 10520; (914) 296-3780. St., Boston, Mass. 02109; (617) 271-4721. National Analysts Inc.; Peter R. 742-3582. Institute of American Research; Vroon (chairman); 1015 Chest- The Roper Organization Inc.; Stephen J. Kovacik Jr. (presi- nut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19107; Burns W. Roper (president); One dent); 88 East Broad St. Colum- (215) 627-8109. Park Ave., New York, N.Y. bus, Ohio 43215; (614) 221-2062. National Opinion Research Cen- 10016; (212) 679-3523. International Research Associates ter; Norman M. Bradburn (di- W. R. Simmons Associates; W. R. Inc.; Helen S. Dinerman (chair- rector); University of Chicago, Simmons (president); 235 East man); 1270 Avenue of the Amer- 6030 South Ellis Ave., Chicago, 42nd St., New York, N.Y. icas, New York, N.Y. 10020; III. 60637; (312) 684-5600. T# 10017; (212) 986-7700. (212) 581-2010. Opinion Research Corp.; Joseph C. Sindlinger and Co. Inc.; Albert E. Gordon L. Joseph and Associates; Bevis (chairman); North Har- Sindlinger (president); Harvard Gordon L. Joseph (president); rison St., Princeton, N.J. 08540; and Yale Aves., Swarthmore, 1510 Veterans Memorial Boule- (609) 924-5900. Pa. 19081; (215) 544-8260. vard, Metairie, La. 70005; (504) Opinion Research Laboratory; Guy Strategy Research; Richard W. 835-0635. E. Rainboth (president); 2108 Tobin Jr. (president); 4141 N. John F. Kraft Inc.; John F. Kraft North Pacific, Seattle, Wash. Miami Ave., Miami, Fla. 33127; (president); 30 6th St. SE, Wash- 98013; (206) 632-9274. (305) 751-2216. ington, D.C. 20003; (202) 547- Opinion Research of California; Suncoast Opinion Surveys; Rich- 7080. * Don M. Muchmore (chairman); ard H. Funsch (president); P.O. W. H. Long Marketing Inc.; W. H. 1232 Belmont Ave., Long Beach, Box 1121, St. Petersburg, Fla. Long (president): 122 Keeling Calif. 90804; (213) 434-5715. 33731; (813) 894-4560. Road East, Greensboro, N.C. Political Surveys and Analysis Inc.; Survey and Research Services Inc.; 27410; (919) 292-4146. Charles W. Roll Jr. (president): Dorinda T. Duggan (president); Louis, Bowles and Grace Inc.: Alex 53 Bank St., Princeton, N.J. 2400 Massachusetts Ave., Cam- Louis (chairman); 1433 Motor 08540; (609) 924-5670. bridge, Mass. 02140; (617) 864- St., Dallas, Tex. 75207; (214) Public Affairs Analysts Inc.; Jo- 7794. 637-4520. seph Napolitan (president); Mi- Survey Research Sciences Inc.; Samuel Lubell; 3200 New Mexico chael Rowan (executive vice Richard R. Stone (president); Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. president); 1028 Connecticut 11411 North Central Express- 20016; (202) 362-3230. # Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. way, Dallas, Tex. 75231; (214) Market Facts Inc.; David K. Har- 20036; (202) 296-6024. 691-0578. din (president): 100 S. Wacker The Public Pulse Worldwide Inc. (a Surveys and Research Corp.; Li- Drive, Chicago, III. 60606; (312) subsidiary of Daniel Starch and bert Ehrman (executive vice 332-2686. Staff Inc.); Oscar B. Lubow president): 1828 L St. NW, Market Opinion Research; Fred- (president); Mamaroneck, N.Y. Washington, D.C. 20036; (202) erick P. Currier (president); 327 10543; (914) 698-0800. 296-1935. John R, Detroit, Mich. 48226; Publicom Inc.; Gerald D. Hursh Wallaces Farmer; Richard J. (313) 963-2414. (president); 1300 Connecticut Pommrehn (research director); Market Research Field Interview- Ave. NW, Washington, D.C. 1912 Grand Ave., Des Moines, ing Service; Marian R. Ange- 20005; (202) 293-1644. Iowa 50305; (515) 243-6181. # letti (director); 3015 East Thom- Oliver A. Quayle III and Co. Joe B. Williams Research; Joe B. as Road, Phoenix, Ariz. 85016; Inc.; (a wholly owned subsidiary Williams (research consultant); (602) 956-2500. of the Minneapolis Star and Elmwood, Neb. 68349; (402) Marketing Evaluations Inc.; Jack Tribune Co.); Oliver A. Quayle 994-5395. E. Landis (president); Cy Chai- III (president); 141 Parkway Daniel Yankelovich Inc.; Daniel kin (senior vice president); 14 Rd., Bronxville. N.Y. 10708; Yankelovich (president): 575 Vanderventer Ave., Port Wash- (212) 295-0779. * Madison Ave., New York, N.Y. ington, N.Y. 11050; (516) 767- Research Services Inc.; John W. 10022; (212) 752-7500. *# 4540; (212) 357-7405. Emery (president); 1441 Welton Marplan Research Inc.; F. J. Van St., Denver, Colo. 80202; (303) member of the National Council on 244-8045. * Bortel (president); 485 Lexing- Public Polls ton Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017; Research Systems Inc.; R. B. Col- -non-profit and/or academic (212) 697-8788. lier (president): 1314 Burch results are always publicly published Mid-South Opinion Surveys; Eu- Drive, Evansville, Ind. 47711; gene Newsom (president): 1750 (812) 867-2463. compiled by Ann Northrop : 1702 8/14/71 secretary, "There's no activity of any Techniques AMPAC, see Vol. 2, No. 31, p. 1659.) NATIONAL kind. He doesn't have advance In Barabba's view, "A critical abil- JOURNAL © CPR 1971 men. He doesn't have money men. The late Elmo Roper, a pioneer ity of a good (polling) firm is to have He doesn't have delegate people. He pollster, said that the polling business experience in overcoming the hesi- doesn't have pollsters." sat on a three-legged stool: sampling, tancy on the part of some campaign Jackson-A no-polling report also interviewing and interpretation. managers to really make use of this in- came from the office of Sen. Henry This base has remained constant formation. If you accept a campaign M. Jackson, of Washington, whose since Roper began polling in the mid- as an economic concept-that is, you supporters are gearing up for a major 1930s. But the kind of information are going to attempt to allocate lim- effort in next March's Florida pri- that sophisticated politicians are seek- ited resources in the most efficient mary. ing and the kind of techniques that way then this information is cru- S. Sterling Munro Jr.. Jackson's pollsters are using to obtain it for cial." administrative assistant, said that them have changed profoundly. Costs and timing: Thomas W. Ben- "When your investment is zero, your A Midwestern Senator said, "Quite ham, vice president of Opinion Re- cost-benefit ratio is 100 per cent." frankly, the trial heats and the stock search and its liaison man with the Sharing the burden: At a dinner question about approval is probably White House, said: "If you're running meeting of Presidential candidates, the least valuable, so far as I'm con- a campaign where you're going to called by party chairman Lawrence F. cerned, because there isn't a thing you spend $500,000, you better put 10 per O'Brien July 14, Muskie proposed can do with that kind of information." cent aside for polling research, be- undertaking a pooled public opinion (The Senator, who is up for reelection cause it can make the other 90 per survey, utilizing a single pollster, as a in 1972, will be polling heavily, but he cent twice or three times more effi- means of saving campaign funds. does not want his constituents to cient The Muskie plan will be studied know about it because "it weakens my "You might want to do a "base further in staff meetings, but it was posture.") study' early in the campaign year. not greeted with enthusiasm. Utility: William Hamilton, now poll- This could be an interview that lasts None of the dark-horse candidates ing for Muskie, said that private polls 45 minutes to an hour and it's a big, -such as Sen. Fred R. Harris, of can tell candidates what issues are im- expensive undertaking. But, from that, Oklahoma, and Rep. Wilbur D. Mills, portant enough to change voting deci- we can do selective studies. We can of Arkansas-are having any polling sions; whether these issues can be check on changing issues. done for them, and they are not in- welded into a campaign theme; and "And then we can do a small-scale terested in paying an equal share how the over-all political climate, in- telephone effort, re-interviewing cer- of the cost of a joint survey for- cluding the other candidates in a race, tain people (a technique known as mula that Muskie's staff regards as will affect the outcome. panelback), to see if they have changed the most equitable. (Pollster Tully Plesser said his polls their minds. You can develop a so- All pollsters interviewed by Na- revealed that a referendum on liquor- phisticated tool and it can still have tional Journal opposed the shared- by-the-drink was a major factor in the good economy to it." data proposal, although they did not senatorial contest in Texas in 1970, Costs of seemingly comparable sur- want to say so publicly for fear of because of the voters who were at- veys can vary as much as 30 per cent, offending Muskie, whose business tracted to the polls by the liquor is- depending on the procedures, the they believe is still up for grabs. One sue.) overhead and the profit margin. pollster said, "You can't do that any Interest groups who are seeking to Senatorial and gubernatorial candi- more than you could work for Ford affect the outcome of an election may dates commonly budget $30,000 for and General Motors. It just seems un- take polls that elicit complex data. polling research over the course of a natural to me." "COPE can buy 10 surveys and de- campaign. One statewide poll in a big liver. them to the candidates," said state may cost $10,000 to $15,000; a pollster John Kraft. "It gives them a survey of a congressional district can Feedback certain control over the campaign." cost up to $10,000. (The techniques of Oliver A. Quayle III takes con- The Committee on Political Educa- conducting both polls are essentially fidential polls for many leading tion, the political action arm of the the same; the only major saving is in Democratic politicians. He also AFL-CIO, has been taking polls since travel.) takes polls for Harper's magazine, 1958. (For a report on COPE, see Vol. "People are beginning to see that which owns Quayle's polling com- 2, No. 37, p. 1963.) this kind of data is much more valu- pany outright and which, in turn, is Similarly, the American Medical able if you can establish a trend," said owned by the Minneapolis Star and Political Action Committee (AM- Teeter of Detroit's Market Opinion Tribune Co. PAC), through its state organizations, Research. This, of course, entails mul- "We bounce things off Ollie," spent more than $400,000 to poll for tiple interviews; in the field, interview- said William S. Blair, the Harper's Republicans between the 1968 and ers are paid $2 an hour or more, plus publisher. "In other words, here's a 1970 elections. Vincent P. Barabba, expenses. guy who wants to do a piece about chairman of Decision Making Infor- DMI's Barabba said: "The diffi- a particular politician. We might mation Inc., a California-based AM- culty you have in measuring costs be- send the writer up to talk to Quayle. PAC pollster, said: "Those guys (at tween companies is knowing whether Obviously, Ollie knows a hell of a AMPAC) have done as much to im- you're measuring apples and apples or lot about individual politicians in prove the systematic analysis of the apples and oranges. There are a lot of this country." political process as any organization ways to cut costs in this kind of re- in existence today." (For a report on search. Unfortunately, there is a direct : 8/14/71 1703 The Rise of the Polls: Bloopers Amid Improving Aim NATIONAL JOURNAL © CPR 1971 Although political polls are com- velt. The pool results helped drive After the election, the Social monplace today, the use of scien- the Literary Digest out of business Science Research Council, a private tific surveying techniques is less as public confidence in the maga- group, named a committee to in- than 40 years old. Yet, in one way zine sagged. quire into the pollsters' methods. or another, polls have been part of Scientific polls: The first scientific The panel found that the sam- the campaign scene for nearly 150 based on a representative pling method they used was a valid years. sample of the population was one, but that the pollsters, in their Straw polls: In 1824, reporters taken in July 1935, when Fortune overconfidence, ignored both un- for the Harrisburg Pennsylvanian reported on public reaction to Roo- decided voters and others who had walked the streets of Wilmington, sevelt and his New Deal programs. switched from Dewey to Truman Del., asking people whom they The poll was taken by three part- late in the campaign. They had also preferred as their Presidential ners, Paul T. Cherington, Elmo B. underestimated the turnout; this candidate. In that first recorded Roper Jr. and Richardson K. made Dewey look better than he United States newspaper poll, the Wood. They had been conducting should have. Pennsylvanian found Andrew Jack- private market research and were Through post-election polling, son running well ahead of John looking for a dramatic way to prove the committee found that one voter Quincy Adams. (Although Jackson the degree of accuracy that could be in seven decided how he would cast won a popular plurality, the elec- obtained through scientific sam- his ballot during the last two weeks tion was thrown into the House of pling. The idea was especially at- of the campaign and that 75 per Representatives, which picked tractive to Roper who, according to cent of this group voted for Truman. Adams.) his son, Burns W. Roper, was fas- Controversy: In 1968, a dispute Newspapers took straw polls cinated by politics and "always arose shortly before the Republican throughout the rest of the 1800s. wanted to be a United States Sen- National Convention that many The Farm Journal became the first ator." pollsters now feel damaged public national magazine to take one-in Gallup's scientific sampling also trust in the business. 1912. By 1928, newspapers and was published in 1935, when a At the time, Gov. Nelson A. magazines were conducting six na- group of newspapers agreed to syn- Rockefeller of New York was bas- tionwide and 79 state and local dicate his findings in a Sunday ing much of his campaign for the straw polls. column. Archibald M. Crossley Presidential nomination on the By far the most prominent of the entered the business in 1936, at the ground that polls showed he would magazine straw polls was that of behest of King Features. be a stronger candidate than Mr. the Literary Digest, which began For many years, Roper, Gallup Nixon when pitted against the even- polling in 1916. The Digest's streak and Crossley were "the big three" tual Democratic nominee. of correct Presidential predictions of the polling business; most of the Rockefeller and Nixon aides remained unbroken until 1936, pollsters active today got their start were circulating private polls with when the magazine reported that in their organizations. conflicting results on various "trial Alfred M. Landon would win 59.1 The three men also were great heats." Then a Gallup Poll, taken per cent of the popular vote and friends who bet on which of the July 19-21, showed Mr. Nixon as 370 of 531 electoral votes. Actually, three would come closest to predic- the stronger candidate. Three days Franklin D. Roosevelt won 60.2 per ting the outcome of a Presidential later on July 30, a Harris Survey cent of the popular vote and 523 election. Roper won in 1936, 1940 was published, with data collected electoral votes. and 1944, each time collecting a July 25-29, which showed Rocke- George H. Gallup, a pioneer sci- case of Scotch from Gallup and feller more likely to defeat Hubert entific pollster, publicly predicted Crossley. H. Humphrey or Eugene J. Mc- at the time that the Digest would Although Roosevelt used private Carthy. fall on its face; he was meanwhile polls informally to discern the pub- On Aug. 1, George H. Gallup Jr. accurately predicting the results. lic mood, the first major private and Louis Harris issued an unprec- As Gallup noted, the Digest political poll was taken by Roper edented joint statement that Rocke- mailed its more than 10 million for Jacob K. Javits in 1946 when feller had "now moved to an open sample ballots solely to car owners Javits was running on the Liberal lead" over the two Democrats. The and telephone subscribers-two Party and Republican lines for a statement was widely interpreted as groups at the time heavily weighted House seat from upper Manhattan. a public retraction by the Gallup with high-income people who tend- Disaster: For a time, the pollsters' organization, but none of the prin- ed to vote Republican and still success in predicting election results cipals has discussed the incident do. The 2,376,523 respondents to gave them oracular status. But the publicly. the Digest poll tended to be the bubble burst in 1948. When the campaign got under wealthiest and best-educated sub- In that year, all the major polls way, the pollsters accurately meas- group in the sample, which biased picked Thomas E. Dewey to defeat ured the Humphrey surge in Octo- the results still further. Further- Harry S Truman by a landslide. ber and the decline in support for more, the Digest failed to take into. Roper stopped polling in mid-Sep- George C. Wallace, the third-party account six million new voters, five tember, certain that Dewey would candidate. million of whom voted for Roose- win. Ann Northrop 1704 8/14/71 relationship between costs and qual- mail out questionnaires (to interview- "None of the private pollsters do NATIONAL ity." ers). I also think we get higher cooper- complete probability sampling be- JOURNAL © CPR 1971 The product: John Kraft, who has 18 ation rates around the country than is cause of the prohibitive expense. years' experience working for both possible in face-to-face interviews. In (Quayle noted that this was not the Democratic and Republican candi- some areas, you can't get people to go case for the Gallup Poll and the Har- dates, said he normally prepares a in at all." ris Survey, "because their necks are written report, about 40 pages in Cleavage: Telephone survey research on the line.") length, of which three-fourths is in- for politicians has mushroomed with "You pick up a point to a point- terpretation. "I'll also supply the the widespread use of bulk-rate long- and-a-half of margin with probability (computer) printouts when I'm asked distance (WATS) lines and computer- samples. I've done them when I've to, but I've had only two such re- ized random generation of telephone had to, when I knew I was in a differ- quests." numbers. But some members of the ent ball game." Kraft, like most other pollsters, pre- political polling fraternity remain op- John Kraft and his wife, Fran Far- fers to discuss results and their mean- posed to telephone surveys. rell Kraft, who is also a well-known ing with the candidate and his staff. Charles W. Roll Jr., president of pollster, agreed with Quayle. "There is "In many cases, it's best to talk it Political Surveys and Analysis Inc. no significant difference in the result," out," he said. (PS&A), which has done most of the Kraft said. Unfavorable reports can bring com- polling commissioned by Nelson Several pollsters disagreed, how- plications. Rockefeller, said: "If I were buying ever. One was PS&A's Roll, who Teeter recalled: "I had one guy sev- surveys for a political campaign that said: "The respectability of quota eral years ago who had been working I felt was terribly important, and there samples went out in 1948, with the hard for two or three months and got was enough money, I wouldn't touch Truman-Dewey election. You don't a bad poll and just sat in a hotel room a telephone survey. I have reason to know what your sample error is. Luck and drank for about four days. We believe (from Rockefeller campaigns) is with them. But it's certainly not couldn't move him; he was in shock that some people are far less critical of enough to hang your hat on, I would because the poll still showed him 10- individuals when asked about them think." 15 points behind. He eventually over the phone, and that, of course, ORC's Benham said his firm used won. Now, we talk a lot about creates a different result. only probability samples. However, he how to lay bad ones on people before "If I were involved in a Presidential said: "In many situations, you can use we do it. It's a very tricky thing." campaign, I would throw the tele- the best scientific probability sample Developments: Most pollsters inter- phone away, unless there was an ex- or a mediocre quota sample and get viewed by National Journal said they tremely urgent time factor involved." the same because there's no recently have started making more ex- (Roll is an employee of George H. critical element that would make an haustive studies of sub-groups and an- Gallup, who bought PS&A from its essential difference." alyzing the response to various issues. founder, Archibald M. Crossley, in Assessment "There's particular interest in the 1970; PS&A uses Gallup's sampling, young voters in '72," Quayle said. interviewing and tabulating facilities, Pollsters and politicians coexist un- Quayle also reported that he is ask- which are based solely on field inter- easily, needing each other and yet ing more media-related questions. views.) aware of each other's limitations. "It's the sort of question I don't like DMI's Barabba said: "You can get Both are victims of a vicious circle to ask, because I don't think people more about a person at the door than in politics: the degree of media expo- really know how they get their infor- on the telephone. The telephone's sure affects poll results; poll results af- mation. I'm amazed at how little the great strength is that you get wider fect the amount of campaign funds television people know sometimes distribution of your sample and inter- that can be raised; campaign funds af- (about the makeup of their audiences) view clusters." fect media exposure. in a given market. But we're learning Don M. Muchmore, chairman of Drawer syndrome: Muchmore thinks to work better together." Opinion Research of California, who campaign managers, more than candi- ORC's Benham said his firm had has done comparative studies of tele- dates, are responsible for poor rela- been able to shorten substantially the phone and field interview polls, said tionships. "We give them a battle time period from "problem to data" the field work produces superior re- plan, and many times they don't want by using more telephone interviews. sults and should be used, except in to use it because they have a feeling "We've also learned how to weigh high-urgency polls of national scope. it's going to go a different way. Some- them better." "With no eye-to-eye contact, there's times they're right; sometimes they're William M. Longman, president of no trust," Muchmore said. wrong. But, more often, they're Central Surveys Inc., said in a tele- Sample methods: Political pollsters wrong." phone interview from Shenandoah, also divide over whether to use quota Another Californian, Vincent Ba- Iowa, that his firm now was able to or probability samples. (For a discus- rabba, said: "We see an awful lot of provide overnight results to political sion of sample error, see statistical what we refer to as the right-hand clients through arrangements for the box.) drawer syndrome. You give a guy a use of computers at the interview sites. Quayle said: "Nobody does proba- survey-you make a fancy presenta- Robert K. McMillan of Chilton Re- bility samples, strictly speaking. And and he says, 'Gee, that's great!' search Services, a proponent of tele- if you did, it would be obscene, be- And he opens up the right-hand phone interviewing, said: "In a day, cause you'd be charging a guy an arm drawer of his desk and puts it in there, you can do here what it would take and a leg for a greater degree of accu- and that's the last time it's used. you four weeks to do if you had to racy than he needs "Then, if someone asks what are you basing all those decisions on, he group, said: "We got committed to if potential backers thought Javits 8/14/71 1705 opens up the drawer and says, "Well, doing the (1968) thing without assess- could not lose. NATIONAL we got a survey. ing as much as we should have in ad- The poll was nevertheless "leaked" JOURNAL © CPR 1971 MOR's Teeter believes the worst is vance." (For a report on the House to The New York Times for its "band- over. "Two or three years ago," he and Senate GOP campaign commit- wagon" effect and because it showed said, "we had a real problem with tees, see Vol. 2, No. 31, p. 2100.) Javits to be the strongest Republican guys who were using it for the first Pressure points: In a profession linked politician in New York state at the time and thought they had just bought closely to the academic community, time. themselves magic buttons. With some but with no entry standards, salesman- The release of the poll led to a people, it became a narcotic. If they ship remains a persistent problem. charge by O'Dwyer that it was a delib- didn't know what to do, they had an- "It's the gut problem in the business," erate attempt to influence the New other poll taken." said Albert H. Cantril, a Washington- York Daily News Poll, which was Getting more: From the client's side, a based polling consultant. Cantril is the scheduled to commence canvassing Democratic Senator said privately: "I author, with Charles Roll, of Hopes just after the GOP poll was released. don't know of anyone around here and Fears of the American People While the Javits "leak" was a delib- who is having polling done and who (Universe Books, 1971), which is erate one, candidates often insist that wouldn't like to get more than he's based on Gallup research. a pollster report directly to them in an getting out of it. But I know it's sim- Said Cantril: "The only way you effort to control access to private polls ply a matter of dollars. They have a can seek new business is to tear down on the campaign staff. product to sell; they have costs." the other guy's methods and try to Pollsters and politicians are coming If finances are often a central prob- show politicians that they are not get- increasingly to agree that there is a lem to the pollster, they are even more ting anything too useful. There are no limit to what surveys can accomplish. of one to the politician. A Republican teaching materials you can use unless MOR's Teeter said: "You can't go Senator from the Northeast said: you break the confidence of a private and say to some guy, 'Look, if you go "There isn't any question that I (political) client." out and take this stand, you'll increase couldn't solve if I wanted to spend Political pollsters also are encoun- your support 4 per cent.' That's $25,000 for a survey." tering fresh problems in seeking to as- crazy." But the difficulties range beyond in- semble valid public opinion data. An Progress: If political pollsters are still sufficient funds. A campaign manager executive at Chilton Research Services searching for a firmer foundation, who has worked with pollsters for in Philadelphia said: "There's no use there are nevertheless signs of prog- many years said privately: kidding anybody; the cooperative rate ress. "I think there's room in this busi- is decreasing every year. It used to be Quayle said: "A couple of years ness for someone who really wants to 20 years ago if we got a 3-per cent re- ago, everybody was trying to get into drive it wide open. He could drive all fusal rate we were concerned about it; the act. And that's not happening any- these guys out. For example, why not today, they are running 10 and 12 per more. A lot of commercial firms-the add an entire demographic package cent. guys who were researching soap and with sample electoral analysis and pri- "It's all part of the misuse of re- so forth-began to dabble in politics, ority ranking of states, congressional search techniques. People today are looking at it as a new market. But districts and counties, with cross-data just more suspicious. You know, a you've got to know something about by issues. It's possible with computer salesman calling up and saying he's politics in this business. It's an art as analysis. That's a service I could really making a survey and the next thing well as a science." use." he's knocking at your door.' Roll believes that what is needed is In 1968, the National Republican Dangers: Private polls can cause com- better liaison between the campaign Congressional (Campaign) Committee plications in campaigns that are not and the pollsters "politically sensi- and its Senate counterpart bought a always readily apparent. For example, tive men inside the campaign organi- $400,000 survey through Datamatics Sen. Jacob K. Javits, R-N.Y., received zation who are at the same time highly Inc., a subsidiary of Spencer-Roberts a poll from Tully Plesser in 1968 that sophisticated about the use of polling and Associates, a California-based showed Javits leading his Democratic techniques." campaign consulting firm. Datamatics opponent, Paul O'Dwyer, 48-16. "It's a funny business," another is now dissolved; at the time, it was Javits' advisers were hesitant about well-known pollster said. "When you headed by Vincent Barabba. releasing the poll, despite the strong get all this stuff done, the candidates Neither the House nor the Senate lead, for fear it would not be believed look at it and if it doesn't really agree committee is scheduling any polling and would raise a "credibility issue." with them, they're very suspicious. projects for 1972. Paul A. Theis, direc- Yet another consideration was fear But if it agrees with them, it's the best tor of public relations for the House that it would be harder to raise money poll in America." a Washington Pressures/Cable TV group wins first round; faces White House, congressional review by Bruce E. Thorp 1706 8/14/71 The cable television industry is about action to put this and other rules into home delivery of facsimile copies of NATIONAL JOURNAL to become an adult, but the last effect sooner. mail and library books. © CPR 1971 months of its adolescence are proving In an unprecedented action that Some members of the industry now to be the most harrowing and the reflected the controversial nature avoid using the name their industry most exciting it has ever experienced. of issues surrounding cable develop- adopted early in its technological de- The federal government now seems ment, the commission merely an- velopment-CATV, which stands for on the point of lifting restrictions nounced that it was proposing to community antenna television and re- that have impeded development of the adopt the new rules by the end of the fers to the relatively simple task of medium. This could lead to explosive year. Burch said that the interval delivering off-the-air signals. growth in the industry and to a rev- would afford Congress and the White The NCTA estimates that by 1980 olution in communications in this House time to react. there could be more than 5,000 cable country. There is reason to believe that both systems serving about 25 million The Federal Communications Com- Congress and the executive branch are homes; cable serves about six million mission on Aug. 5 took a step in going to scrutinize the new rules. homes now. Annual revenues by 1980 that direction, but the decision still The White House has demonstrated could exceed $2 billion and net worth is subject to review at the White could total $5 billion, the association House and in Congress. plant says, compared with $350 million and Thus, the industry and its Washing- a flower $1.2 billion now. ton trade association, the National in the Freeze: Cable has the potential to Cable Television Association, face vast LET CABLE wire nearly all the buildings in the several more months of anguish and wasteland TV GROW country into a massive communica- of battle with their arch rival, the tions network, and to deliver pro- National Association of Broadcast- grams to anyone on request from vast ers. They must be careful lest the in- electronic storage centers. dustry snatch defeat from the jaws of Over-the-air broadcasting could victory. well disappear. Difficult times: The government FORGET-ME-NOT The potential effects of these devel- actions are coming at a difficult time opments on society and on the econ- for the NCTA, which is without an omy are so uncertain that the FCC in effective leader. its interest by establishing a Cabinet- 1968 clamped a lid on industry growth Donald V. Taverner, NCTA presi- level committee on cable television until further study could be made. dent since Jan. 1, 1970, was ef- and by sponsoring meetings recently Most affected were large cities, where fect - fired by the board of directors with interest groups that would be cable systems were, in effect, pro- in June, although he may continue in affected by the rules. hibited from importing television sig- office until Dec. 31, when his contract And broadcasting interests, which nals from other markets. expires. have strong allies in Congress, may Thaw: If the FCC finally adopts its A search for a new president is un- seek action to change those rules it rules, the industry will begin to grow der way, and those who were dissatis- deems prejudicial to its interests. again. fied with Taverner hope for a strong Broadcasters have long tried to delay Cable operators are eager to begin leader more familiar with the indus- development of the cable industry, importing distant signals to large try than Taverner has been. fearing that cable would reduce their cities, so that cable systems-without The association's new national markets. great cost can give subscribers some- chairman, John Gwin, is filling the Industry growth: The cable television thing new. After they attract enough role of industry leader during Taver- industry is about 20 years old, but it subscribers and generate enough rev- ner's lame-duck period. But Gwin be- has barely begun to develop toward enues, they can begin to offer addi- came chairman only on July 8, and he its full potential. Most of the esti- tional, unique services, operators say. is not entirely familiar with the Wash- mated 2,750 cable systems today- (For a report on the industry and the ington scene. Gwin is a division vice 1,095 of them are members of the proposed rules, see No. 1, p. 1.) president of Cox Cable Communica- NCTA little more for their sub- Industry rift: Most cable systems are tions Inc., a large cable company, and scribers than deliver improved versions very small, with fewer than 1,000 sub- operates a cable system in Robinson, of signals already available on the air. cribers, and they provide only off-the- III. Some of them deliver signals to iso- air signals. Owners of these "mom New rules: Dean Burch, chairman of lated mountain and rural areas where and pop" systems have little interest the Federal Communications Com- they could not be seen otherwise. in whether the federal government mission, on Aug. 5 announced the Cable's potential hinges on its abil- takes the lid off cable development. commission's intention to issue new ity to deliver a multitude of channels Most small systems are not even rules governing cable television, to be to homes and offices to supplement members of the NCTA, and those that effective March 1, 1972. One of the present television service, which is are want the association to fend off rules, allowing all cable operators to limited by technology and economics government regulation as much as transmit out-of-town signals to to a relatively few channels in a given possible; they want to maintain the their subscribers, was crucial to the area. status quo. cable industry. Industry representatives talk of pro- At the other extreme are the large Industry leaders hailed the FCC viding any number of new services, systems, with thousands of subscribers proposal, but they were disappointed from customized education courses to who demand extra services and who that the FCC had not taken decisive coverage of neighborhood events to make it economically worthwhile for THE WHITE HOUSE NAEHINGTON Administrativaly Confidential August 3, 1971 MEMORANDUM FOR: L. HIGBY FROM: GORDON STRACHAN SUBJECT: National Journal on Polls Andrew Dr. Derge called me this morning at 11:30 a.m. to report that he had just received a call from Andrew Glass of the National Journal who told Derge's secretary that he Was doing an article for the Journal on polls and would there- fore like to talk with Dr. Derge. Dr. Derge refused to talk to him but called me to advise of the fact that Glass had tried to reach him. Andrew Glass called me at 1:10 p.m. and I, too, did not take the call. A check with Ed Harper indicates that he knows Andrew Glass but had not received a call from him recently. Apparently Andrew Glass recently did an article for the National Journal on revenue sharing and gave the Máminis- tration a very rough going over. Harper reports that Andrew Glass breached an agreement with Jamie McLane on revenuing sharing as he was not to directly quote Mr. McLane. Checks with Ken Cole's office and John Campbell's office indicate that they have not received calls from Andrew Glass. Neither you nor Mr. Haldeman have received calls. A check with Tom Benham, however, indicates that he talked with Andrew Glass about a week ago for 15-20 minutes. The story Benham gives me is that Andrew Glass called him in the regular course of his calls to Gallup and Harris, etc., about political polling. Benham reports that he reviewed his involvement in past campaigns but he emphasizes that he did not disclose Dr. Derge's name nor mine. According to Benham, the National Journal article will be out in one week. Bruce says our only contact at National Journal is Bonafede and that requests to him go through Hiegler's office. Should I have Ziegler's office contact Mr. Bonafede about Andrew Glass' article? L.NO THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 HRH:GS:lm August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 N Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 HRH:GS:lm August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and lierb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 HRH:GS:lm THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 '& THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 feel Chron August 16, 1971 Dear Mr. Glass: Your letter of August the 10th comments on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. As you probably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler and Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to the public through reporters. The inconvenience resulting from Gordon Strachan not returning your call might have been alleviated had you gone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler. Sincerely, H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor National Journal 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 HRH:GS:lm THE WHITE HOUSE Mr. Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor NATIONAL JOURNAL 1730 M Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20036 730 M Jabel, N.W., WashinGeo, D.C. 20030, Telephone RUL, 000 August 10, 1971 Mr. H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President The White House Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Haldeman: I read with interest that you feel the President has a hostile press corps because most are Democrats. I would submit the problem runs deeper than that. As a case in point, I recently wrote an article on political polling -- including White House polls. I received no ofricial cooperation. My calls, including one to your assistant, Cordon Strachan, went unreturned. That never used to happen in the Kennedy and Johnson Adminis- tration. Could it account for some of the hostility you as- cribe to partisan feeling? Reporters do have political viewpoints. I voted for Mr. Nixon because I agreed with his program (and not because he was un- failingly gracious when I covered him, off and on, for the New York Herald Tribune and Washington Post.) I am interested in the political process -- sufficiently SO to have taken leaves to work for two Republican Senators. But I am also dedicated to honest journalism and, consequently, put off by the kind of treatment I encountered in doing the polling story. This letter is written in the spirit of trying to promote better relations; I hope, in the future, they will be. Sincerely, Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor magust S, 1971 zon. MEDLY FROM COLLON Dr. Desge called ... this TO 11:00 so custo to june Clobal 00 COM 3 coung CM article Bott THE C.L. police Come like 20 CARD DR. DE. Derge CHEM to Mill but called the CO of CAR face Child Charge sed trice to Leach Class CALLED TO at 1.1. your and =, LOO, 4_C not take the call. eliden with Hamper included Chard no Glans DUC now not three GIF are an NOT INVOICE may and gave a ver; todge goans come. CLINE Indicated CLass becaused OK experience with Statio client C. rovenuing sharing as he WORL not to directly quote THE Molland. Checks with Man Colo's office John Campbell's indicate that they have not received calls from Chass. Noither you nor No. have received calls either. A check with Tom Bonham, nowever, indicates that to talket WITH Androw Glaba about is week ago for 15-20 minutes. seary Bonham gives ICE is there indrev Class called libert 11. she regular COULDS of ALC calls to Gallup and Narcia, cool, about political polling. Bonken reports that he revie 00 involvement 10 past DUC he emphacize. time did not disclose Dr. Dezigio AMO nor mine. Recording to Contrain, the National Southell article will DO OWC in ONC Bruce syas our only concact are Mauronal Journal in Donalled and Chat requests to him go through Siegler's office. X have - office contact Mr. Bonefood alout Andrew Glass' cruicle? GS:lm 1730 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, Telephone (202) 833-8000 August 10, 1971 Mr. H.R. Haldeman Assistant to the President The White House National Journal Washington, D.C. 20500 Dear Mr. Haldeman: I read with interest that you feel the President has a hostile press corps because most are Democrats. I would submit the problem runs deeper than that. As a case in point, I recently wrote an article on political polling -- including White House polls. I received no official cooperation. My calls, including one to your assistant, Gordon Strachan, went unreturned. That never used to happen in the Kennedy and Johnson Adminis- tration. Could it account for some of the hostility you as- cribe to partisan feeling? Reporters do have political viewpoints. I voted for Mr. Nixon because I agreed with his program (and not because he was un- failingly gracious when I covered him, off and on, for the New York Herald Tribune and Washington Post.) I am interested in the political process -- sufficiently so to have taken leaves to work for two Republican Senators. But I am also dedicated to honest journalism and, consequently, put off by the kind of treatment I encountered in doing the polling story. This letter is written in the spirit of trying to promote better relations; I hope, in the future, they will be. Sincerely, Andrew 1.blors Andrew J. Glass Contributing Editor DRAFT Dear Mr. Glass: Thank you for your letter of August the 10th regarding the lack of "official cooperation" concerning your article on political polls. I regret any inconvenience which you may have encountered and if I may, I would suggest that in the future you contact the offices of Ron Ziegler or Herb Klein as they do try to facilitate the flow of information from the government to reporters and I am sure they would be glad to promptly assist you in any way possible. With best regards. Sincerely, HRH

Document source description

This file contains: From Jeb Magruder to Gordon Strachan. RE: An attached copy of Max Fisher's memo to the Attorney General. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/15/1971 From Max Fisher to John Mitchell. RE: The support of the Jewish community in the 1972 campaign. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971 Indecipherable handwritten note dated 9/11. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Florida Primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Young People on State Committees. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: RNC Research Program. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From Thomas B. Evans Jr. to John Mitchell. RE: An attached outline that provides information on the uses of the redistricting base file. 8 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/3/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Lee Edwards, an organizer who runs several public relations projects for conservative groups. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/31/1971 An article from the United Press International entitled, "FBI Friends Lack Pals in Tax Service." 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Newsletter], no date From Ken Rietz to Jeb Magruder. RE: New Voter Day at Winrock. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/2/1971 From Ed Harper to Jamie McLane. RE: Salute to the Young Voter Speech. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/2/1971 A report entitled, "Salute To the New Voter: Information for Introduction." 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date A typed telegram from the President addressing the "Salute To the Young Voters" in Pettyjean Mountain, Arkansas. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 8/28/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Georg Babbe's attached resume, and his possible selection as the new Campaign Manager in California. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: An attached report by David A. Keene on the the YAF convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/9/1971 From David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: The YAF Convention. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The continued use of Bill Timmons as the head of the convention activities. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/1/1971 From Ken Cole to Haldeman. RE: An attached memo from Bill Timmons recommending that John Rhodes be appointed the Chairman of the Platform Committee for the '72 Republican National Convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Letter], 9/9/1971 From William Timmons to John Ehrlichman. RE: The 1972 Convention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From William Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The '72 Convention Appointments. 13 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971 From Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The '72 Convention, and an enclosed memo from Bill Timmons concerning hotel accommodations, transportation, and seating for major officials in the Administration. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/1/1971 From William E. Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The 1972 Convention, and a head count of the number of subcabinet and agency heads in attendence. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/30/1971 From Harry Dent to The Attorney General and Haldeman. RE: The Kentucky Governor's Race. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971 A detailed analysis of the gubernatorial race in Kentucky. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 11/2/1971 Unknown sender to John Kerr. RE: Thoughts concerning the public opinion survey conducted in Kentucky during the week of August 15. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/26/1971 From Harry Dent to Haldeman. RE: The "good play" that was received from the Kissinger briefing for the Billy Graham group. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/3/1971 An article from the Baptist Press. RE: The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, and impending changes about to be made. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Newsletter], 8/12/1971 An article from the Baptist Press entitled, "30 Religious Leaders Briefed by White House on Red China." 1 pg. [Subject: Foreign Policy] [Newsletter], 8/12/1971 An article from the Religious News Service entitled,"Southern Baptist Leader Reports on White House China Briefing." 1 pg. [Subject: Foreign Policy] [Newsletter], 8/13/1971 From Charles Colson to Haldeman. RE: The Monitoring of Democrats. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/14/1971 From Thomas B. Evans to Haldeman. RE: The attached summary and analysis of the Delaware poll. 23 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/30/1971 From L. Higby to Strachan. RE: Message that reads: "Ok, I don't believe he could pay him $29,000. What does Jeb make?" 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date From Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE: Different assignments of cabinet members such as: "Rob Odle handles office management." 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date From Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: Magruder's Administrative Assistant. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/15/1971 The resume of Robert L. Herrema, and the employment history which includes: The U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and a position at The George Washington University in Washington D.C. 3 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Other Document], no date From Jeb Magruder to The Attorney General. RE: An attached report from David A. Keene on the YAP convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/9/1971 From David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: YAF Convention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971 Indecipherable handwritten note dated 9/14. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date From Stephen Bull to Dwight Chapin. RE: Scheduling of Senator Goldwater and Other Surrogate Candidates. 7 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/14/1971 From Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Andrew Glass/National Journal Article on Polling. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/16/1971 An article in the National Journal written by Andrew J. Glass entitled: "Political Report/Pollsters Prowl Nation as Candidates Use Opinion Surveys to Plan '72 Campaign." 14 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Newspaper], 8/14/1971 From Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/3/1971 From Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter commenting on the lack of "official cooperation" concerning an article on political polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971 From Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter of August 10, where he comments on the lack of "official cooperation." *Document repeated six times. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971 An addressed envelope to Andrew Glass, editor at National Journal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Other Document], no date From Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' offense at being "slighted" by Gordon Strachan when trying to get information for his article in the National Journal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 8/10/1971 From Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: The National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/3/1971 From Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' complaint of Gordon Strachan's treatment of him as a member of the press. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 8/10/1971

Page data

Page
1
Source index
0
Type
document
Media ID
d641ac7487614df0
Size
unknown

Document data

ID
26145902
Core
doc
Type
document
DTO data 
{
    "id": "26145902",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145902",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 26-3",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to Gordon Strachan. RE: An attached copy of Max Fisher's memo to the Attorney General. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/15/1971\n\nFrom Max Fisher to John Mitchell. RE: The support of the Jewish community in the 1972 campaign. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971\n\nIndecipherable handwritten note dated 9/11. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Florida Primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Young People on State Committees. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: RNC Research Program. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Thomas B. Evans Jr. to John Mitchell. RE: An attached outline that provides information on the uses of the redistricting base file. 8 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/3/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Lee Edwards, an organizer who runs several public relations projects for conservative groups. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/31/1971\n\nAn article from the United Press International entitled, \"FBI Friends Lack Pals in Tax Service.\" 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Newsletter], no date\n\nFrom Ken Rietz to Jeb Magruder. RE: New Voter Day at Winrock. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/2/1971\n\nFrom Ed Harper to Jamie McLane. RE: Salute to the Young Voter Speech. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/2/1971\n\nA report entitled, \"Salute To the New Voter: Information for Introduction.\" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date\n\nA typed telegram from the President addressing the \"Salute To the Young Voters\" in Pettyjean Mountain, Arkansas. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 8/28/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Georg Babbe's attached resume, and his possible selection as the new Campaign Manager in California. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: An attached report by David A. Keene on the the YAF convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/9/1971\n\nFrom David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: The YAF Convention. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The continued use of Bill Timmons as the head of the convention activities. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/1/1971\n\nFrom Ken Cole to Haldeman. RE: An attached memo from Bill Timmons recommending that John Rhodes be appointed the Chairman of the Platform Committee for the '72 Republican National Convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Letter], 9/9/1971\n\nFrom William Timmons to John Ehrlichman. RE: The 1972 Convention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom William Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The '72 Convention Appointments. 13 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The '72 Convention, and an enclosed memo from Bill Timmons concerning hotel accommodations, transportation, and seating for major officials in the Administration. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/1/1971\n\nFrom William E. Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The 1972 Convention, and a head count of the number of subcabinet and agency heads in attendence. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/30/1971\n\nFrom Harry Dent to The Attorney General and Haldeman. RE: The Kentucky Governor's Race. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nA detailed analysis of the gubernatorial race in Kentucky. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 11/2/1971\n\nUnknown sender to John Kerr. RE: Thoughts concerning the public opinion survey conducted in Kentucky during the week of August 15. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/26/1971\n\nFrom Harry Dent to Haldeman. RE: The \"good play\" that was received from the Kissinger briefing for the Billy Graham group. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/3/1971\n\nAn article from the Baptist Press. RE: The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, and impending changes about to be made. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Newsletter], 8/12/1971\n\nAn article from the Baptist Press entitled, \"30 Religious Leaders Briefed by White House on Red China.\" 1 pg. [Subject: Foreign Policy] [Newsletter], 8/12/1971\n\nAn article from the Religious News Service entitled,\"Southern Baptist Leader Reports on White House China Briefing.\" 1 pg. [Subject: Foreign Policy] [Newsletter], 8/13/1971\n\nFrom Charles Colson to Haldeman. RE: The Monitoring of Democrats. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/14/1971\n\nFrom Thomas B. Evans to Haldeman. RE: The attached summary and analysis of the Delaware poll. 23 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/30/1971\n\nFrom L. Higby to Strachan. RE: Message that reads: \"Ok, I don't believe he could pay him $29,000. What does Jeb make?\" 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE: Different assignments of cabinet members such as: \"Rob Odle handles office management.\" 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: Magruder's Administrative Assistant. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/15/1971\n\nThe resume of Robert L. Herrema, and the employment history which includes: The U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and a position at The George Washington University in Washington D.C. 3 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to The Attorney General. RE: An attached report from David A. Keene on the YAP convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/9/1971\n\nFrom David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: YAF Convention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nIndecipherable handwritten note dated 9/14. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Stephen Bull to Dwight Chapin. RE: Scheduling of Senator Goldwater and Other Surrogate Candidates. 7 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/14/1971\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Andrew Glass/National Journal Article on Polling. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/16/1971\n\nAn article in the National Journal written by Andrew J. Glass entitled: \"Political Report/Pollsters Prowl Nation as Candidates Use Opinion Surveys to Plan '72 Campaign.\" 14 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Newspaper], 8/14/1971\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/3/1971\n\nFrom Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter commenting on the lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning an article on political polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971\n\nFrom Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter of August 10, where he comments on the lack of \"official cooperation.\" *Document repeated six times. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971\n\nAn addressed envelope to Andrew Glass, editor at National Journal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' offense at being \"slighted\" by Gordon Strachan when trying to get information for his article in the National Journal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 8/10/1971\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: The National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/3/1971\n\nFrom Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' complaint of Gordon Strachan's treatment of him as a member of the press. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 8/10/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145902",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

Context sent to Scholar

Document identity 
{
    "localId": "26145902",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 26-3",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145902"
}
Document source metadata 
{
    "id": "26145902",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145902",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 26-3",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to Gordon Strachan. RE: An attached copy of Max Fisher's memo to the Attorney General. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 9/15/1971\n\nFrom Max Fisher to John Mitchell. RE: The support of the Jewish community in the 1972 campaign. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971\n\nIndecipherable handwritten note dated 9/11. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Florida Primary. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Young People on State Committees. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: RNC Research Program. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Thomas B. Evans Jr. to John Mitchell. RE: An attached outline that provides information on the uses of the redistricting base file. 8 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/3/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Lee Edwards, an organizer who runs several public relations projects for conservative groups. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/31/1971\n\nAn article from the United Press International entitled, \"FBI Friends Lack Pals in Tax Service.\" 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Newsletter], no date\n\nFrom Ken Rietz to Jeb Magruder. RE: New Voter Day at Winrock. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/2/1971\n\nFrom Ed Harper to Jamie McLane. RE: Salute to the Young Voter Speech. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/2/1971\n\nA report entitled, \"Salute To the New Voter: Information for Introduction.\" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], no date\n\nA typed telegram from the President addressing the \"Salute To the Young Voters\" in Pettyjean Mountain, Arkansas. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 8/28/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: Georg Babbe's attached resume, and his possible selection as the new Campaign Manager in California. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: An attached report by David A. Keene on the the YAF convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/9/1971\n\nFrom David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: The YAF Convention. 3 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The continued use of Bill Timmons as the head of the convention activities. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/1/1971\n\nFrom Ken Cole to Haldeman. RE: An attached memo from Bill Timmons recommending that John Rhodes be appointed the Chairman of the Platform Committee for the '72 Republican National Convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Letter], 9/9/1971\n\nFrom William Timmons to John Ehrlichman. RE: The 1972 Convention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom William Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The '72 Convention Appointments. 13 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General. RE: The '72 Convention, and an enclosed memo from Bill Timmons concerning hotel accommodations, transportation, and seating for major officials in the Administration. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/1/1971\n\nFrom William E. Timmons to Jeb Magruder. RE: The 1972 Convention, and a head count of the number of subcabinet and agency heads in attendence. 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/30/1971\n\nFrom Harry Dent to The Attorney General and Haldeman. RE: The Kentucky Governor's Race. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nA detailed analysis of the gubernatorial race in Kentucky. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 11/2/1971\n\nUnknown sender to John Kerr. RE: Thoughts concerning the public opinion survey conducted in Kentucky during the week of August 15. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/26/1971\n\nFrom Harry Dent to Haldeman. RE: The \"good play\" that was received from the Kissinger briefing for the Billy Graham group. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/3/1971\n\nAn article from the Baptist Press. RE: The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, and impending changes about to be made. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Newsletter], 8/12/1971\n\nAn article from the Baptist Press entitled, \"30 Religious Leaders Briefed by White House on Red China.\" 1 pg. [Subject: Foreign Policy] [Newsletter], 8/12/1971\n\nAn article from the Religious News Service entitled,\"Southern Baptist Leader Reports on White House China Briefing.\" 1 pg. [Subject: Foreign Policy] [Newsletter], 8/13/1971\n\nFrom Charles Colson to Haldeman. RE: The Monitoring of Democrats. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/14/1971\n\nFrom Thomas B. Evans to Haldeman. RE: The attached summary and analysis of the Delaware poll. 23 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/30/1971\n\nFrom L. Higby to Strachan. RE: Message that reads: \"Ok, I don't believe he could pay him $29,000. What does Jeb make?\" 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE: Different assignments of cabinet members such as: \"Rob Odle handles office management.\" 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], no date\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE: Magruder's Administrative Assistant. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/15/1971\n\nThe resume of Robert L. Herrema, and the employment history which includes: The U.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives, and a position at The George Washington University in Washington D.C. 3 pgs. [Subject: Personal] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Jeb Magruder to The Attorney General. RE: An attached report from David A. Keene on the YAP convention. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/9/1971\n\nFrom David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE: YAF Convention. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/8/1971\n\nIndecipherable handwritten note dated 9/14. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Stephen Bull to Dwight Chapin. RE: Scheduling of Senator Goldwater and Other Surrogate Candidates. 7 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 9/14/1971\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE: Andrew Glass/National Journal Article on Polling. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/16/1971\n\nAn article in the National Journal written by Andrew J. Glass entitled: \"Political Report/Pollsters Prowl Nation as Candidates Use Opinion Surveys to Plan '72 Campaign.\" 14 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Newspaper], 8/14/1971\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 8/3/1971\n\nFrom Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter commenting on the lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning an article on political polls. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971\n\nFrom Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr. Glass' letter of August 10, where he comments on the lack of \"official cooperation.\" *Document repeated six times. 6 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Letter], 8/16/1971\n\nAn addressed envelope to Andrew Glass, editor at National Journal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Other Document], no date\n\nFrom Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' offense at being \"slighted\" by Gordon Strachan when trying to get information for his article in the National Journal. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 8/10/1971\n\nFrom Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: The National Journal Article on Polls--Andrew Glass. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/3/1971\n\nFrom Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr. Glass' complaint of Gordon Strachan's treatment of him as a member of the press. 1 pg. [Subject: Personal] [Letter], 8/10/1971",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145902",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}
Document source extras 
{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26145902",
    "naId": 26145902,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}
Page context 
{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/2/1459/26145902/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-26/Contested-26-03.pdf",
    "mediaId": "d641ac7487614df0",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n9/15/1971\nWhite House Staff\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to Gordon Strachan. RE:\nAn attached copy of Max Fisher's memo to\nthe Attorney General. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/16/1971\nCampaign\nLetter\nFrom Max Fisher to John Mitchell. RE: The\nsupport of the Jewish community in the 1972\ncampaign. 6 pgs.\n26\n3\nWhite House Staff\nOther Document\nIndecipherable handwritten note dated 9/11.\n1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: Florida Primary. 1 pg.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 1 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: Young People on State Committees. 1\npg.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: RNC Research Program. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/3/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Thomas B. Evans Jr. to John Mitchell.\nRE: An attached outline that provides\ninformation on the uses of the redistricting\nbase file. 8 pgs.\n26\n3\n8/31/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: Lee Edwards, an organizer who runs\nseveral public relations projects for\nconservative groups. 2 pgs.\n26\n3\nDomestic Policy\nNewsletter\nAn article from the United Press\nInternational entitled, \"FBI Friends Lack Pals\nin Tax Service.\" 1 pg.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 2 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n9/2/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Ken Rietz to Jeb Magruder. RE: New\nVoter Day at Winrock. 2 pgs.\n26\n3\n9/2/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Ed Harper to Jamie McLane. RE:\nSalute to the Young Voter Speech. 1 pg.\n26\n3\nCampaign\nReport\nA report entitled, \"Salute To the New Voter:\nInformation for Introduction.\" 2 pgs.\n26\n3\n8/28/1971\nCampaign\nOther Document\nA typed telegram from the President\naddressing the \"Salute To the Young Voters\"\nin Pettyjean Mountain, Arkansas. 5 pgs.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: Georg Babbe's attached resume, and his\npossible selection as the new Campaign\nManager in California. 3 pgs.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 3 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n9/9/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: An attached report by David A. Keene\non the the YAF convention. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE:\nThe YAF Convention. 3 pgs.\n26\n3\n9/1/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: The continued use of Bill Timmons as\nthe head of the convention activities. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/9/1971\nDomestic Policy\nLetter\nFrom Ken Cole to Haldeman. RE: An\nattached memo from Bill Timmons\nrecommending that John Rhodes be\nappointed the Chairman of the Platform\nCommittee for the '72 Republican National\nConvention. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom William Timmons to John Ehrlichman.\nRE: The 1972 Convention. 2 pgs.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 4 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom William Timmons to Jeb Magruder.\nRE: The '72 Convention Appointments. 13\npgs.\n26\n3\n9/1/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to the Attorney General.\nRE: The '72 Convention, and an enclosed\nmemo from Bill Timmons concerning hotel\naccommodations, transportation, and seating\nfor major officials in the Administration. 1\npg.\n26\n3\n8/30/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom William E. Timmons to Jeb Magruder.\nRE: The 1972 Convention, and a head count\nof the number of subcabinet and agency\nheads in attendence. 3 pgs.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Harry Dent to The Attorney General\nand Haldeman. RE: The Kentucky\nGovernor's Race. 2 pgs.\n26\n3\n11/2/1971\nCampaign\nReport\nA detailed analysis of the gubernatorial race\nin Kentucky. 4 pgs.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 5 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n8/26/1971\nCampaign\nLetter\nUnknown sender to John Kerr. RE: Thoughts\nconcerning the public opinion survey\nconducted in Kentucky during the week of\nAugust 15. 4 pgs.\n26\n3\n9/3/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Harry Dent to Haldeman. RE: The\n\"good play\" that was received from the\nKissinger briefing for the Billy Graham\ngroup. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/12/1971\nDomestic Policy\nNewsletter\nAn article from the Baptist Press. RE: The\nSouthern Baptist Home Mission Board, and\nimpending changes about to be made. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/12/1971\nForeign Policy\nNewsletter\nAn article from the Baptist Press entitled,\n\"30 Religious Leaders Briefed by White\nHouse on Red China.\" 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/13/1971\nForeign Policy\nNewsletter\nAn article from the Religious News Service\nentitled, \"Southern Baptist Leader Reports on\nWhite House China Briefing.\" 1 pg.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 6 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n9/14/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Charles Colson to Haldeman. RE: The\nMonitoring of Democrats. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/30/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Thomas B. Evans to Haldeman. RE:\nThe attached summary and analysis of the\nDelaware poll. 23 pgs.\n26\n3\nWhite House Staff\nMemo\nFrom L. Higby to Strachan. RE: Message\nthat reads: \"Ok, I don't believe he could pay\nhim $29,000. What does Jeb make?\" 1 pg.\n26\n3\nWhite House Staff\nMemo\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Larry. RE:\nDifferent assignments of cabinet members\nsuch as: \"Rob Odle handles office\nmanagement.\" 1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/15/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Larry Higby. RE:\nMagruder's Administrative Assistant. 1 pg.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 7 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\nPersonal\nOther Document\nThe resume of Robert L. Herrema, and the\nemployment history which includes: The\nU.S. Senate, U.S. House of Representatives,\nand a position at The George Washington\nUniversity in Washington D.C. 3 pgs.\n26\n3\n9/9/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Jeb Magruder to The Attorney\nGeneral. RE: An attached report from David\nA. Keene on the YAP convention. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/8/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom David A. Keene to Jeb Magruder. RE:\nYAF Convention. 2 pgs.\n26\n3\nWhite House Staff\nOther Document\nIndecipherable handwritten note dated 9/14.\n1 pg.\n26\n3\n9/14/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Stephen Bull to Dwight Chapin. RE:\nScheduling of Senator Goldwater and Other\nSurrogate Candidates. 7 pgs.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 8 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\n8/16/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Gordon Strachan to Haldeman. RE:\nAndrew Glass/National Journal Article on\nPolling. 2 pgs.\n26\n3\n8/14/1971\nCampaign\nNewspaper\nAn article in the National Journal written by\nAndrew J. Glass entitled: \"Political\nReport/Pollsters Prowl Nation as Candidates\nUse Opinion Surveys to Plan '72 Campaign.\"\n14 pgs.\n26\n3\n8/3/1971\nDomestic Policy\nMemo\nFrom Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE:\nNational Journal Article on Polls--Andrew\nGlass. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/16/1971\nCampaign\nLetter\nFrom Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr.\nGlass' letter commenting on the lack of\n\"official cooperation\" concerning an article\non political polls. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/16/1971\nCampaign\nLetter\nFrom Haldeman to Andrew Glass. RE: Mr.\nGlass' letter of August 10, where he\ncomments on the lack of \"official\ncooperation.\" *Document repeated six times.\n6 pgs.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 9 of 10\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n26\n3\nPersonal\nOther Document\nAn addressed envelope to Andrew Glass,\neditor at National Journal. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/10/1971\nPersonal\nLetter\nFrom Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr.\nGlass' offense at being \"slighted\" by Gordon\nStrachan when trying to get information for\nhis article in the National Journal. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/3/1971\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Gordon Strachan to L. Higby. RE: The\nNational Journal Article on Polls--Andrew\nGlass. 1 pg.\n26\n3\n8/10/1971\nPersonal\nLetter\nFrom Andrew Glass to Haldeman. RE: Mr.\nGlass' complaint of Gordon Strachan's\ntreatment of him as a member of the press. 1\npg.\nWednesday, June 22, 2011\nPage 10 of 10\nPresidential Materials Review Board\nReview on Contested Documents\nCollection: H. R. Haldeman\nBox Number: 305\nFolder:\n6 Campaign - Aug 13, Sept 17, Sept 18, 1971 [1 of 2]\nDocument\nDisposition\n47\nRetain\nOpen\n48\nRetain\nOpen\n49\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Note, Magruder to Strachan, 9-15-71\nPrivate/Political Notes, \" Jsm....\"\n11\n50\nReturn\n9-11-[71]\n51\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 9-8-71\n52\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the AG, 9-8-71\n53\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 9-8-71\n54\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 8-31-71\n55\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Rietz to Magruder, 9-2-71\n56\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo Magruder to the AG, 9-8-71\n57\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the AG, 9-9-71\n58\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the A6, 9-1-71\n59\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Cole to HRH, 9-9-71\n60\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo Magruder to the AG, 9-1-71\n61\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Dent to the AG & HRH, 9-8-71\n62\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Dent to HRH, 9-3-71\n63\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Colson to HRH, 9-14-71\n64\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Evans to HRH, 8-30-71\n65\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Note, Higby to Strachan, n.d.\n66\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Magruder to the AG, 9.9.71\n67\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Notes. \"Chapin, cwc, S.Bull, JSM,\" 9-14[7]]\n68\nReturn\nPrivate/Political Memo, Strachan to HRH, 8-16-71\nCITIZENS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT\nSeptember 15, 1971\nFOR:\nGORDON STRACHAN\nFROM:\nJEB MAGRUDER\nAttached is a copy of Max Fisher's memorandum\nto the Attorney General on the Jewish Community.\nNote that Larry Goldberg will be joining the\nstaff October 1 to work in this general area.\nAttachment\n&\n:\nMAX M. FISHER\n2210 FISHER BUILDING\nDETROIT, MICHIGAN 48202\nAugust 16, 1971\nThe Honorable John Mitchell\nAttorney-General\nJustice Department\nWashington, D.C.\nRe: Jewish Community\nDear John:\nIt is my feeling that a swing could be made in the voting\npattern of the Jewish Community in the 1972 campaign, if we\nunderstand the basic issues and we start organizing now on a\nlow key basis.\nIf you recall, the polls showed that the Jewish vote was about\n21% for President Nixon. It is my feeling there can be a very\ndistinct switch of 10% in the upcoming election of 1972.\nI have outlined what I consider the basic issues concerning the\nJewish community from my own experiences and contacts with\na broad spectrum throughout the whole country. The issues of\nprimary concern are as follows:\nBASIC ISSUES\n(1) Israel. If there is one thing that the Jewish community is\nunited on it is the preservation and security and viability of Israel.\n(2) Economic Policies: Because of their predominance in the\nindustrial and financial world, the economic situation in the\ncountry is of great concern. I might mention that from a survey\nof leaders in this area, I find a strong, strong tendency towards\nsome sort of controls, plus a stimulation of the economy through\ninvestment tax credits, as well as an adequate money supply\nto keep such industries as housing moving. This is now part of\nthe President's policy.\nThe Honorable John Mitchell\nAugust 16, 1971\nPage Two\nI have lumped together the next four issues, because various\nsectors of the community have very strong, positive feelings\nabout each of them:\n(1) Law and Order: There is a strong feeling on this issue among\nthe Orthodox and Conservative members of our community.\nAmong these groups, of course, are large numbers who live in\nproximity to other minority groups. You will find this true\nparticularly in the large cities where the population has not been\nable to move about because of lower income status and of age\nlimitations. They have suffered considerably from the effect of\nhigh crime and violence in these areas. To them the safety of an\narea is a very, very important item.\n(2) Soviet Jewry: There is a great emotional response throughout\nthe country on this issue, and it is interesting that this is one of\nthe great issues of the youth. They feel that the intolerance of\nthe Russian government with the Jewish minority is not right,\nand that all efforts should be made to give them every opportunity\nto freely emigrate. The President has a very deep understanding\nof this problem, as I have discussed it with him on a previous\noccasion.\nAlong this line, the matter of the Yiddish broadcasting in Soviet\nRussia by Radio Free Europe is a very important issue. In\naddition, a substitute for the Koch Bill, which would be a statement\nby the Department of Justice and the State Department, allowing\nentry into the U.S. I understand this was done in the case of Cuba.\nThe next issue has become very controversial. Its early resolve\nwould be helpful.\n(3) Civil Rights: The Jewish community has been in the forefront\nof civil rights, but I find in this particular issue there has been a\ndropping down in the matter of priorities, and this is probably\nmore important among the Reformed Jewish community and some\nof the college youth and faculty. There is no question that even in\na liberal oriented Jewish community that this no longer stands as\nhigh on the priority list as it previously did.\n(4) Urban problems and welfare reform.\nThe Honorable John Mitchell\nAugust 16, 1971\nPage Three\nIn conclusion, bearing in mind these priorities, one can\nstructure an approach to the Jewish community which could be\nvery meaningful.\nSTAFFING\nI think it highly important that a staff be set up along the following\nlines:\nOne full time man in Washington, who has a thorough knowledge\nand understanding of Jewish community life. I have in mind\nsomeone in the 30's or 40's, who has had experience in leadership\nin his own community, who also understands the pluralistic nature\nof the Jewish community as it relates to its high degree of\norganization life. The community, I believe, is over-organized\nwith many organizations, but this is a fact of life and one must\nrecognize it, though one must not be taken in by the claims of\norganization as to the control of constituency. For example,\nB'nai B'rith may say they have a million members they control.\nThey may have one million members, but they hardly control the\nvotes, but having their help can be very constructive, especially\namong their leadership.\nAs far as staff is concerned, I have a couple of candidates in mind.\nOne of them is a very active Republican from Providence, Rhode\nIland, Lawrence Goldberg, who has good credentials and who has\nwanted to get into government. There are one or two others who\nmay be needed before we get through. I believe the involvement\nat the beginning this person could make with all the larger\ncommunities and organizations throughout the country is important.\nI have another man who would be a great addition. I have mentioned\npreviously Mr. Albert Adelman of Milwaukee, who has great\ncredentials all through the major cities in the country because of his\ninvolvement and leadership in many of the organizations and who\nalso is a life-long Republican.\nI believe we could make a deal with Ollie to spend considerable\ntime on this, as he has a definite interest to get into foreign service\nor in Washington life, as he has sold his business and has a desire\nto do something else. I mention this man to you, because I have\ntalked with him several times, and I believe that after meeting\nwith both of us, we can get him on board.\nThe Honorable John Mitchell\nAugust 16, 1971\nPage Four\nThese men would be of help in establishing various contacts\nthroughout the country, at the beginning, and would help me in\nbringing a representative group of leadership into Washington\nfor our meeting.\nNext, I would like to bring to Washington a group of 30 to 40\noutstanding men who would form the nucleus of our committee.\nThis leadership would have the opportunity to meet with the\nPresident -- along the lines of our meeting in 1968. In addition,\nI think one or two other meetings might be necessary with you,\nwhich could be very helpful.\nCOMMUNICATIONS\nWe have to make plans to be able to communicate to the rank and\nfile of the country what the President has done as far as Israel\nis concerned. Though a broad section of the leadership knows of\nhis deep interest and involvement, this has not filtered down to\nthe rank and file, and I believe the following procedures are\nnecessary:\n(1) That a man with broad experience in the Jewish media be\nmade available, and I have a man in mind for this, who woul d do\nthe following:\na. Using a systematic approach to the Anglo-Jewish Press,\nsee that proper information is carried on the issues involved\nthrough the news or editorial section.\nIn a very limited way, I have been able to make my views known,\nand they have been broadly interpreted, but this has to be followed\nup on a more systematic basis.\nb. There are lists available of all the Rabbis, prominent men,\netc. at the White House and the Republican National headquarters,\nwhich should be used as a basis for some letters written by myself\non the above issues, starting immediately. This list must be\nupdated with opinion makers and leaders from the various\ncommunities. Along this line, our staff should be assembling large\nnumbers of lists from the various organizations for future mailings.\nThe Honorable John Mitchell\nAugust 16, 1971\nPage Five\nThis kind of operation has to be started as soon as possible,\nbecause it will be much more effective than it would be if we had\na crash program just a few months before the election.\nOne of the things I have tried to do very carefully in my relations\nwith organizations and leadership of the communities (and I might\nmention that I make almost 40 or 50 appearances a year before\nsome of these organizations) is to be as factual as possible\nwithout being apolitical. The fact that I have been able to do this\nis evidenced by a great deal of newspaper coverage that I have\nreceived from the Jewish press, which makes me believe that we\nhave built a base from which we can become political. I might\nmention also that all of this work would be coordinated with the\nRepublican Party, so as to obtain the maximum amount of leader-\nship in the various communities.\nAlso, we have today statements and information from various\nIsraeli leaders, praising President Nixon, and we would have to\nresearch all the available information on this to be used in our\ncommunications. I have some of this, but we need much more,\nand this is available.\nOne of the greatest opportunities we will have is on the matter of\npublicizing the assistance Israel receives in credits, grants and\narms, when these issues are clarified in the near future. It will\nthen be necessary to move in real depth in communicating to\npeople throughout the country.\nNext, it is highly important that the President make an early\ndecision about the meeting on November 13 in Pittsburgh. Besides\nthe leadership of the communities, the President of every major\norganization will be there. I, personally, have solicited their\nattendance, and they have agreed to attend, though no one knows\nof the possibility of the President being there. This could be a\nvery important stimulus, as it would be the only meeting of the\nJewish community the President has addressed since his Inaugural.\nJohn, we have an opportunity, knowing what the basic issues are\nin the community, of setting up an organization and communications\nnetwork promptly, and I believe it can make a very meaningful\nimpact on what we are trying to accomplish.\nThe Honorable John Mitchell\nAugust 16, 1971\nPage Six\nIn addition, I believe a fund-raising activity, which would be part\nof the general fund-raising activity, could be developed. I would\nagree to organize this, but it should be part of the regular structure\nand not on an ethnic basis.\nWe would be able to enlist people for the overall effort from the\nleadership group we would assemble, and as far as the large\ncontributors, I'm afraid this will have to be my responsibility.\nWhat it would mean is the following: One full-time staff man;\none part-time non-paid man; one man on communications.\nI am prepared to move on this, but would like to have your comments.\nKindest personal regards,\nmay\n9/11\nJ8m\n1\nsunog candy D.C/Ball\nSpollesman Resource man\n2\nmax Fisher - gewish operation.\ntherry Goldberg Σ into\ncommittee LLR.I\n3\nPol Mty -welk by mon.\n4\nAG -breakfast mtg\n10/2 in LA all Cal\nYAF poe personalities in 1 room\n5\n6\nBrochure - -print\nTO AN\nUNG\nSeptember 8, 1971\n1\n6-102\nBy\n3 24-82\ny\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nSUBJECT:\nFlorida Primary\nI discussed with Congressman Frey the opportunity to keep\nagrees\nMcCloskey's name off the ballot for the Florida primary. Frey\nfeels it would be a PR mistake for us to do that because he\nfeels strongly that we will win handily and it would be much\nmore effective if we win against McCloskey rather than if we\nare running against ourselves.\nOf more concern is probably the Democratic side of that primary\nin that if we assume it is to our advantage to have Jackson win\nin Florida to offset Muskie's predicted New Hampshire win, we\nmaybe should consider whether there is anything we can do to\nkeep Wallace off the Democratic ballot.\nFrey feels that in a race between Lindsay, Muskie, and Jackson,\nJackson would who whereas, with the addition of Wallace Muskie's\nchances increase greatly. Two wins in a row that early could be\nvery helpful to Muskie.\nWould you like me to pursue this subject further?\nYes\nX\nNo\nComment\nbcc: Mr. Haldeman\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nCONFIDENTIAL+\nDETERMINE\nAN\nSeptember 8, 1971\nADMIN\nKING\n0-102\nBy\n22\n3-24-82\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nSUBJECT:\nYoung People on State Committees\nMr. Haldeman has suggested that we consider placing a high percent-\nage of young, responsible people under the age of 30 on our various\nstate committees. Evidentially, he feels these young people should\nnot only be anvolved in the Young Voters for Nixon, but should also\nbe actively involved in our senior state political operations.\nIf you approve, I will work with Ken Rietz and Harry Flemming to\nassure that we get as many youth members on our state committees\nas possible.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nComment\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nbcc: Mr. Haldeman\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSeptember 8, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nFROM:\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nSUBJECT:\nRNC RESEARCH PROGRAM\nAttached is a memo prepared by Ed DeBolt, at Tom\nEvans' direction, describing the $350,000 RNC\nresearch program to compile a comprehensive census\nand political data base for the 1972 campaign.\nBriefly, the RNC has contributed varying sums of\nmoney to each of 18 state party organizations ($153,850\ntotal - See Attachment C) to aid in developing base\nfiles for use in legislative redistricting. An addi-\ntional $130,000 has been budgeted for development of\nsoftware and refinement of data reporting capabilities\n(Attachment A). The remaining $65,000 of the origi-\nnal budget has not yet been committed.\nWe feel that these highly sophisticated base files\ncan be very useful in targeting the Presidential\ncampaign to Republican and swing voters through\nbroadcast media, direct mail and telephones, parti-\ncularly in such key states as California, Illinois,\nIndiana, New Jersey, Florida and Ohio. Bob Marik has\nbeen working closely with the RNC research staff to\ndevelop plans for the most effective utilization of\nthe data in 1972.\nSeptember 3, 1971\nMEMORANDUM TO:\nThe Honorable John N. Mitchell\nFROM:\nThomas B. Evans, Jr.\nThe attached outline was prepared by Ed DeSolt\nat my direction for your information.\nIt provides detailed information on the basic\nelements and uses of the redistricting base file in which Jeb Magruder\nindicated you had an interest.\nIn brief, the system benefits the President's\ncampaign both directly and indirectly.\nIndirectly, the leadership role and financial\nassistance provided by the RNC has been highly beneficial as a service\nto state and local party leaders, incumbent Republican officials, and\nto the Republican candidates who will be running for Congress and State\nlegislatures in 1972. As noted by John Andrews, the National Party\nhas already received considerable good will from this effort and more\nimportantly, we have established a valuable precedent of cooperative\nfinancial and project effort involving the key elements of the Party.\nThe direct application, as far as the President's\ncampaign is concerned, involves the use of census and political data\nwhich are particularly valuable when studied along with survey research\ndata. Utilization of the information system in the campaign is described\non Page 2, section D of the attached. It should be noted that the\nfull potential of this information in the national campaign will not be\nknown until the RNC and Citizens Committee staffs have completed their\nplanning work on the targeting/resource allocation system.\nWith the gains already made in Congressional and\nState legislative redistricting and the potential value of this\ninformation to our 1972 National efforts, the allocation of funds for\nthe continued development of the system is justifiable.\nThe Republican National Committee's Investment* in the purchase of\ncomputerized statistics and census data was Initiated as a multifaceted\nproject intended to help a wide variety of Republican organizations. The\nfollowing is an outline, in the briefest of terms, of some of the facets\nof the project.\nINTERESTED ENTITIES\nA. Citizens for the Re-Election of the President Committee\nB. Republican National Committee\nC. Republican Congressional Campaign Committee\nD. Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee\nE. Republican State Committees\nF. Republican County Committees\nG. Campaign organizations supporting candidates for governor,\nU. S. Senator, U. S. Congress, state constitutional offices,\nstate legislators, mayors, city councilmen and county officials\nUSES\nA. Congressional redistricting\nB. Legislative reapportionment\nUnder catagories A & B\n1. Offensive uses include:\na. Assuring constitutionality of Republican sponsored\nbills by eliminating mathematical errors and omissions,\nand achieving the precise balance between districts\nrequired by the one man-one vote doctrine.\nb. Increase partisanship of Republican sponsored bills.\nC. Improve public relations by claiming to use non-partisan\napproaches and the most modern tools available to carry\nout the spirit and the letter of the Supreme Court\nedicts.\n2. Defensive uses include:\na. Furnish documentary evidence of violation of the one\nman-one vote doctrine in connection with law suits\nInitiated against Democrat sponsored bills.\nb. Provide information on which Republican governors can\nbase decisions as to whether bills should be signed or\nvetoed.\nC. Give Republican legislators an analysis of the partisan\nimplications of Democrat sponsored bills within hours of\nIntroduction.\nd. Furnish propaganda, backed by specific figures, to use\nagainst Democrats when their bills are partisan.\nC. Party building\n1. Provide state committees with management tools that will\nassist them to assign vote quotas, allocate their resources\nand train county leaders in the latest techniques of using\nvote history and demographic information.\n* (See Attachment A)\n2. Place the primary control of redistricting In the hands of\nparty officials who have the interest of all segments of\nthe party at heart rather than the interest of specific\nIncumbents.\n3. Overcome factionalism as it relates to reapportionment\nand redistricting by causing party leaders to work together\nas a team to maximize the benefits of this expensive,\nsophisticated tool. Indiana and California are outstanding\nexamples of this.\nD. Campaign applications\nCertain portions of the integrated geographic base files,\nparticularly precinct-by-precinct voting statistics and\ncorrespondency tables showing the geographical relationship\nbetween precinct and census geography, can provide valuable\nInformation for making campaign management decisions. This\nis especially true when that data is studied along with\ndemographic imformation and the results of polls and surveys.\nThe precinct statistics show the historical voting patterns,\nthe demographics describe the type of people living in a given\narea and the survey data gives an indication of present voter\nattitudes. (See Attachment B)\nSome of the campaign decisions that a manager can make as a result\nof having ready access to vote history, demographics and surveys\nwill result in:\n1. Allocating a candidate's time more effectively.\n2. Advising a candidate on the issues that should be stressed\nin speeches and press conferences in each area.\n3. Increasing the cost effectiveness of expenditures by\ndeciding which form of communication will reach the maximum\nnumber of people in an identifiable age, education, income\nor ethnic group.\nFor instance, when market area are known by the media buyer,\nthis data can aid him in choosing between:\na. Direct mail\nb. Local radio\nC. Local television\nd. Door to door distribution of a brochure\ne. Use of a telephone boiler room\n4. Choosing the most appealing issue to advertise via each\nform of media.\n5. Minimizing backlash.\nOTHER FACTORS THAT CAUSED THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE TO INITIATE\nTHE PROJECT In addition to the obvious importance to the administration\nof having a more favorable congressional line up, other factors were:\nA. Strengthening the leadership roles of the Republican N ational\nCommittee and the Citizens Committee for the Re-Election of the\nPresident by using modern tools and thereby enhancing the respect\nof the state leaders for the two committees.\n-2-\nB. The timing of numerous legislative sessions that convened in\nJanuary of 1971 while most state party organizations were in\nsevere financial difficulty and unable to afford modern tools.\nC. The substantial goodwill to be gained by rendering financial\nassistance to state committees at a time when most are in debt\nas a result of the 1970 campaign.\nD. Starting an ongoing data bank to be used by various segments of\nthe party in the future on a cost sharing basis.\nUTILIZATION TO DATE\nWhile the extent of our involvement varies substantially from state to\nstate, * constructive use of the results of our computer work has been\nmade in connection with reapportionment and redistricting functions in:\nArizona\nIndiana\nNew Mexico\nCalifornia\nIowa\nNew York\nColorado\nMaine\nOhio\nConnecticut\nMichigan\nOregon\nDelaware\nMinnesota\nUtah\nIllinois\nNew Jersey\nWashington\nWisconsin\nNo firm decision has been made by the state party leadership as yet, but\nFlorida remains a possible user of our systems.\nLIMITING FACTORS\nWhile we clearly recognize the desirability of collecting similar\ndata from each state and having a standard format, the realities of\npolitical organizations made this an impossibility. The principle\nfactors that made more standardization impractical were:\nA. The degree of financial committment the various state committees\nwere willing to make.\nB. The election years state leaders felt were politically significant.\nC. The election contests state leaders felt were politically\nsignificant.\nD. Precinct boundary changes which make tracking of historical\ndata over a several year period difficult.\nThe result of the variations in type of data and format by states\nmean that the specific management reports that can be generated will\nvary somewhat from state to state.\nPROBABLE GAINS\nA minimum of eight congressional seats should be gained by the\nRepublican Party as a result of this project. Considering the cost\nof conducting congressional campaigns in 5 campaign years in eight\ncongressional districts, the expenditure for this project is one of\nthe most cost effective investments the Republican National Committee\ncould possibley make. It seems to be even a better investment when\nthe additional benefits listed above, especially providing management\ntools for an effective re-election campaign for the President, are\nconsidered.\n*(See Attachment C)\n-3-\nAs John Andrews, Chairman of the GOP State Chairmen's Association\nsald at the recent meeting of the Republican National Committee in\nDenver, \"No RNC project has done more to reach the grass roots or pro-\nvide more Incentive and leadership when it was direly needed, than the\nassistance rendered with the Redistricting effort this past spring\nand summer.'\nATTACHMENT A\nCOMPUTER COST INFORMATION\nActivity\nCost Estimates (RNC)\n1.\nDevelopment and acquisition of redis-\ntricting base files\n$153,850\n2.\nStandardization and, where necessary\nfor priority areas, acquisition of\nadditional precinct vote information\n40,000\n3.\nDevelopment of additional analysis\nreports (see Attachment B)\n40,000\n4.\nStandardization and, where necessary\nfor priority areas, development of\nadditional correspondencies/correlations\nbetween election and census geographic\nareas\n30,000\n5. Development of a Dominate Area of\nInfluence model and a Media Allocation\n'model\n20,000\n$283.850\nThe other $65,000 remaining in the budget of approximately $350,000\nis available for further sopisticating computer analysis and mapping in\nareas of high priority plus variations of previous reports as needed by\nthe White House or Citizens effort.\n-2-\n1.\nThe preparation of analyses of demographic and vote patterns\nfor precincts, wards, and/or Census Tract areas;\n2.\nThe preparation of additional computer-generated density maps;\n3.\nThe analysis of correlations between census and election\ncharacteristics;\nand each must be evaluated in terms of its costs and possible benefits.\nATTACHMENT C\nCOSTS-BASE FILE PURCHASES\nSeveral potential base file purchases are in the negotiating stage at\nthis time, so the following figures must, of necessity, just represent\nour best estimates. It will be noted that our percentage of participation\nvaried greatly from state to state:\nRNC\nSTATE\nTOTAL COST\nPARTICIPATION\nArizona\n15,000\n2,500\nCalifornia\n225,000\n25,000\nColorado\n20,000\n5,000\nConnecticut\n12,000\n6,000\nDelaware\n10,000\n2,000\nFlorida\nOPEN\n10,000*\nIllinois\n35,000\n7,500\nIndiana\n103,000\n15,000\nIowa\n5,000\n2,350\nMichigan\n42,000\n17,000*\nMinnesota\n24,000\n9,000*\nNew Mexico\n5,000\n500\nNew Jersey\n30,000\n10,000*\nNew York\nUNKNOWN\n7,500*\nOhio\n45,000\n22,500\nOregon\n20,000\n3,000*\nWashington\n20,000\n3,000*\nWisconsin\n13,000\n6,000\n$624,000\n$153,850\n*Estimates only\nConstant efforts were made to hold down base file creation costs.\nIn addition, every effort was made during negotiations with state leaders\nto cause the state party's participation to be substantial and the RNC's\nparticipation to be less than the 50% that was originally estimated.\nIn many cases these efforts were successful. In addition, when it\nbecame apparent that an investment on the part of the RNC would not\nreap results because of our minority situation in a state legislature\nor bacause of a lack of resolve on the part of state party leaders,\nno investment was made. Massachusetts and Pennsylvania are examples\nof this.\nCITIZENS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 31, 1971\nSUITE 272\n1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20006\n(202) 333-0920\nCONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY\nby\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nIn light of last Sunday's Evans-Novak column, we thought that the\nfollowing information might be of interest to you:\nLee Edwards, son of the Chicago Tribune's Willard Edwards, runs a\nnumber of public relations projects for conservative oriented groups\nout of an office on De Sales Street. Edwards was recently featured\nprominently in the media when he testified on the Hill, as director\nof Walter Judd's Committee of One Million, against the President's\ninitiatives toward mainland China. Edwards \"took over\" this group\nafter Marvin Liebman gave it up, and now has almost complete control\nover it.\nOne of Edwards' most recent projects is \"Americans for Agnew,\" a\ngroup designed to put pressure on the President to keep the Vice\nPresident on the ticket in 1972. Pat Gorman, who heads a political\ndirect mail firm has sent out telegrams to conservative leaders ask-\ning for donations, and our information is that Gorman and Edwards\nwill soon commence a major series of mass mailings to raise money for\nthis group.\nA third current project is \"Friends of the FBI,\" of which Edwards is\ndirector of information. Gorman makes fund raising mailings for this\ngroup, also, and reportedly has raised $153,000, of which Gorman and\nEdwards have allegedly taken $55,000 in fees.\n\"Friends of the FBI\" began as a project of the \"Commission for\nInternational Due Process of Law.\" The commission is non-profit and\ntax-exempt -- hence, donations to \"Friends\" have been tax-exempt and\nthe organization's mailings made at the Post Office's lower rates for\nnon-profit organizations.\nCONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY\nCONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY\n2\nJust recently, IRS has warned that contributions to \"Friends\"\nmight not be tax-exempt even though it has been a project of a tax-\nexempt commission. \"Friends\" now has its own petition before the\nIRS for tax-exemption because the parent Commission has said it\nwill sever relations with \"Friends\" as of August 31, 1971.\nContrary to what Evans-Novak state, The Richard A. Viguerie Company\nhas not raised any money for \"Friends\" whatsoever. Gorman's firm\nhandles all of Edward's direct mail work, including the direct mail\nsolicitation for \"Friends\" and \"Americans for Agnew.\"\n\"Friends\" has probably been cleared with Director Hoover since it\nis our information that when he receives checks intended for this\norganization he will endorse them over to \"Friends\" and send them\nto Edwards.\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nCONFIDENTIAL/EYES ONLY\nAttachment\nRowland Evans and Robert Novak\nMills Hints New Tax Break\nmight go into new plant and of a legal link to the Chlca-\nequipment.\ngo-based Commission for In-\nHoover Lobby\nternational Due Process of\nLaw (a tax-exempt organiza-\nTHE CONTINUING popu-\nlarity of FBI Director J.\ntion headed by Lails Kutner),\nFOF now has a petition of its\nEdgar Hoover in the face of\nown for tax-exemption before\nrising criticism that the old\nthe Internal Revenue Serv-\nman (now 76) has abused his\nicc. The reason for that is\n'FBI Friends'\npower and ought to quit is\nthat some of Kutner's liberal\nstunningly revealed in the\nfriends, including Democratic\nfund drive by a pro-Hoover\nRep. Abner Mikva of Chi-\nLack Pals in\nlobby called Friends of the\ncago, protested bitterly at his\nFBI (FOF), Inc.\nconnection with FOF.\nTax Service\nOrganized only In late\nThus some contributors to\nMay, FOF has now received\nFOF, who sent their checks\nwell over $100,000 in cash\non the promise of tax exemp-\nUnited Press International\ngifts from a direct-mail cam-\ntion in solicitation letters\nThe Internal Revenue Serv-\npaign that has solicited con-\nsigned by television actor\nice warned yesterday that it\ntributions from backers of\nEfrem Zimbalist Jr. (star of\nmay not allow tax deductions\nright-wing causes, and from\n\"The FBI\"), may now not be\nfor contributions to friends of\nwhat Lce Edwards, its public\nall that certain of getting it.\nthe FBI, formed to defend the\nrelations adviser, calls \"Mid-\nUnless the IRS declares FOF\nagency against its critics. It\ndle Americans.\" The Richard\na legitimate tax-exempt out-\nhas collected over $100,000 in\nA. Viguerie Co., Inc., which\nfit, the pro-Hoover organiza-\nthe past two months.\nhandled fund-raising for the\ntion has lost its tax shelter.\nLee Edwards, the group's\nabortive 1070 Senate cam-\nA footnote: The $100.000-\npublic information director,\npaign of former federal\nplus collected by FOF will fi-\nsaid the money was solicited\njudge G. Harrold Carswell in\nnanee what is described as a\nin a mass mailing campaign\nFlorida, has earried a major\nblue-ribbon commission of\nwith a letter signed by actor\nload of the FOF fund drive.\nlawyers and scholars to study\nEfram Zimbalist Jr., who\nBut it has not beon all a\nthe FBI's history and write a\nplays in the television series\nbed of roses. Originally\nreport titled: \"The FBI: Its\n\"The FBL\"\nclaiming that contributions\nRecord and Performance.\"\nEdwards said letters went\nwere tax-exempt as a result\n© 1971, Publishers-Hall Syndicate\nout to an estimated million\npersons. Zimbalist asked them\nto \"sign a declaration of sup-\nport\" and added: \"Your gift\nis tax deductible so I ask you\nplease to be generous.\"\nAn IRS spokesman said yes-\nterday: \"Friends of the FBI\ndoes not at this time nor ever\nhas had a determination from\nus that it was tax exempt.\"\nTo qualify for tax exempt\nstatus, organizations must\nprove they were established\nfor religious, charitable, ed-\nucational, literary or scientific\npurposes. Participation in po-\nlitical campaigns, lobbying or\npublishing \"propaganda\" is\nprohibited.\nCITIZENS FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON\nSUITE 272\n1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W.\nWASHINGTON. D.C. 20000\nSeptember 2, 1971\n(202) 333-0920\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nFROM:\nKEN RIETZ\nSUBJECT:\nNew Voter Day at Winrock\nAlthough the crowd was smaller than expected (1,000),\nI believe the event at Winrock last Saturday was a\nsuccess.\nDr. Harper did an excellent job of representing the\nPresident. His speech effectively told the youth\nstory in terms of not only what the President has\ndone for young people, but also how he has involved\nthem in the Administration. Those attending responded\nvery favorably, and I suggest we use him again.\nGovernor Rockefeller is extremely interested in\nyoung people and the youth vote. He was a gracious\nhost, although he stayed too long at the microphone.\nI believe a real understanding about the youth campaign\nwas worked out with the YR's, and I talked to several\npeople who could play key roles for us. All in all, it\nwas a worthwhile effort.\nA voting machine was set up and about 200 voted. Here is\na list of the questions and the results:\nFor President-Richard Nixon 55%\nWilbur Mills 45%\nPage 2\nDo you approve of the President's intiative\nin Red China?\nYes\n71%\nNo\n29%\nDo you approve of the President's\nwage and price freeze?\nYes\n64%\nNo\n36%\nDo you approve of the way the President\nis handling his job?\nYes\n53%\nNo\n47%\nDo you approve of the way Gov. Bumper is\nhandling his job?\nYes\n40%\nNo\n60%\nDo you think President Nixon will be\nre-elected?\nYes\n45%\nNo\n55%\nAre you satisfied with the President's\nde-escalation policy in Vietnam?\nYes\n56%\nNo\n44%\nDo you approve of the 18-year old vote?\nYes\n92%\nNo\n8%\nDo you intend to vote in 1972 even if you\nhave to use an absentee ballot?\nYes\n82%\nNo\n18%\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nSeptember 2, 1971\nInformation\nMEMORANDUM FOR JAMIE MC LANE\nFROM:\nED HARPER\nSUBJECT:\nSalute to the Young Voter Speech\nAt the request of our Speaker's Bureau, I spoke at Governor\nWinthrop Rockefeller's \"Salute to the New Voter\" at Winrock\nFarms, Arkansas on August 28th.\nAttached is a copy of the introduction and my remarks.\nKen Reitz asked for a copy of my remarks; thus, they will be\nsent to him 23 a.copy of this memo.\nAttachments\nCC: Ken Cole\nGordon Strachan\nRoy Mercy\nKen Reitz\nELH:ppd\nAINTE TO THE LE! VOTER\"\ninrock Farms\nattyjean Mountain, Arkansas\nugust 26, 1971\nINFORMATION FOR INTRODUCTION\nThe President directed Dr. Edwin L. Harper, his Special Assistant and\nAssistant Director of the Domestic Affairs Council to come to this meeting\ntoday to bring you a special message.\nLet me tell you a little about Ed Harper's background before presenting\nhim to you.\nIt was just six years age that Ed was Vice-President of the Student\nCouncil at the University of Virginia. Aside from his work on the Student\nCouncil, Ed was is member of the Editorial Ecard of the Cavalier Daily, a\nNational Defense Fellow, and was elected to membership in the Raven Society and\nOmicron Delta Kappa--ODK. Ed took his Ph:D. in political science from the\nUniversity of Virginia after having received a B.A. with Honors from a small\nliteral arts college in Illinois, Principia College.\nIn fact, Ed is a native of the mid-west having grown up in the St.\nLouis area. He knows Arkansas by virtue of having lived in Memphis for a\nfew years and by having spent many summer vacations at his grandfather's\nfarm just over the torder from Pochahontos, Arkansas, in Missouri.\nAfter leaving the University of Virginia Ed spent a year as a Guest\nScholar at the Brookings Institution in Washington. He went on to teach\nThe American Presidency, Public Policy, and American Government at\nRutgers University for two years. He then spent another year in Washington\nas a Fellow of the American Society for Public Administration working for\nthe Bureau of the Budget in the Executive Office of the President.\nLd then was hired by one of the nation's largest management consulting\nfirms as a senior consultant specializing in budgeting, planning policy,\nand urban affairs.\n2\nIn 1969 Ed joined the White Heuse staff as a Special Assistant to the\nPresident. When the Domestic Affairs Council was formed in July, 1970,\nEd was made one of the four Assistant Directors of the Council.\nThus, it does not necessarily have to be such a long road between\nyour classroom and a room in the White House.\nI now introduce Special Assistant to the President of the United States,\nEd Harper.\nDr. Edwin L. Harper, REMARKS\n\"Salute to the Young Voter\"\nWinrock Farms\nPettyjean Mountain, Arkansas\nAugust 28, 1971\nI am honored to have the President send me here to Arkansas\nas his personal representative to you. In that capacity he asked\nme to deliver this telegram to you.\nThe following is the text of the President's telegram:\nTo the young Americans gathered this summer day at Winrock\nFarms, Congratulations! For all of you have received a great\ngift and challenge--the right to vote. Today, in a new and\nexciting way, you have a voice in the future of America. Yours\nis the cherished opportunity to help mold this land we all share.\nThe history of this nation is a chronicle of the ever broadening\npower to participate. And as each new group has gained this\nfranchise, it has brought freshneks and vitality to the purpose\nof government. So will you. You now have the most powerful\nmeans a citizen has of making himself heard in our free republic.\nIn this \"Salute to the New Voter,\" allow me also to join with you\nin thanking your host and my good friend, Governor Winthrop\nRockefeller, who has contributed so much as a public leader and\nas a private citizen to the young people of Arkansas. To Governor\nRockefeller and to all of you, my warm greetings and best wishes\nfor the future.\nRICHARD NIXON\nSince the theme of this get together is voting your decision about\nwho should be your elected representative-- I would like to share with\nyou some of my personal observations about the President, the kind\nof nam he i., and how he feels à Pre sident, or for that matter, any\nnan running for public office should be judged.\n- 2 -\nThe President's years as a highschool and college student were\nyears fundamentally different from the years we have spent as\nhighschool and college students. The one word used to describe\nthose years is \"depression. \" To those who lived through it, it\nwas more than the lowest point in a business cycle. It was a time\nwhen you, most of your family, and everyone you knew did not have\na job and had no prospects of getting one in the foreseeable future.\nWith no jobs, there was no income, and with no-income there were\nnone of the amenities we enjoy today. There were few of the basics\nfor some people.\nThe President and his family struggled their way through the\ndepression as did this nation. What the President found was that\neven in the depression hard work provided opportunities. Through\nhis own extraordinary efforts he was able to complete college and\ngo on to Duke University Law School in North Carolina.\nThe President's hard work, his determination and his absolute\nfaith in this country's potential to provide opportunities for self-\nfulfillment for those who will work for it characterize all he does\ntoday.\nThis does not mean that he feels that the country has reached\nits potential in providing opportunities (or all nor that everyone\nmust suffer through the same kinds of problems he solved. But\n- 3\nrather'he feels that part of the beauty of this nation is that America\nhas the spiritual and material resources to be a continually self\nrenewing and improving country.\nAs you know, the President has recently moved in a massive,\ncomprehensive way on the economic front to insure job opportunities\nfor Americans looking for work, A less publicized feature of his\nAugust 15th message was his announcement that in January he will\npresent a new proposal to encourage research and development to\ncreate new industries and the 20 million new jobs we will need by\n1980.\nThe President's new economic policy is a good example of the\nway he works. The President could have just responded to the\nimmediate problem in international trade. Instead the President\ncalled his top economic advisers together and said, let's take a\nlook at all of the options; let's not take a patchwork approach; let's\ngo for an across-the-board approach which points us towards a real\nsolution to the problems of our economy.\nI was privileged to participate in some of the early meetings\nleading up the President's decisions announced in his August 15th\nstatement on the economy. But it is not too unusual in the White\nHouse these days for younger people to have senior responsibility.\nRon Ziegler, the President's press secretary, has just recently\n**\n- 4 -\ngone over the hill--over 30. Of the four assistant directors of\nthe Domestic Council--the President's personal domestic policy\nstaff--only one is over 33. You might be interested to know that\nthe man who headed up the interdepartmental task force which\nput together the President's environment package last year,\nChris Demuth, was only 23. Two of our top professionals on the\npolicy staff are women in their twenties who have already made\noutstanding careers for themselves in the practice of law and\nand management consulting.\nI believe this is the youngest White House staff in history,\nbarring none. This is the staff which the President relies upon to\nmake sure that all of the policy options are fully and carefully\nstaffed out.\nIt is his decisions on these policy options by which the President\nwants to be judged. The President does not feel that he nor any\nother elective official or candidate for office should be judged\nby the length of his hair\nby the modishness of his clothes\nnor by the intensity of his rhetoric.\nWhat the President feels counts is action--performance To promise\nsomething that you cannot accomplish is both irresponsible and\ndestructive of the people's faith in America and its system. Only\n- 5 -\nby being tough minded can we as voters avoid the disappointment\nthat comes with accepting promises that cannot be kept.\nLet me close with a quote which I think well summarizes\nthe President's feelings about this country, its future, and your\nrole in its future.\nThe President said.\n\"Let us tell young Americans, all Americans, that we should\nlove America. But let us love her not because she is rich and not\nbecause she is strong, but because America is a good country and\nwe are going to make her better\n\"This is a beautiful country and we are privileged to be the\ngeneration that has the responsibility to make it even more beautiful\nfor the generations ahead. 11\nThank you.\n(Quote from:\nPresident's Address to Junior\nChamber of Commerce's National\nConvention in St. Louis, Missouri,\nJune 25, 1970)\nDETERMANCE TO BE AN\nADD\nE.J.\n100\n45102\nSeptember 8, 1971\nBy it\n5-24-82\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nSUBJECT: Georg Babbe\nAttached for your information is a resume for Georg Babbe whose\nname was given to me by Cliff Miller as a possible candidate\nfor Campaign Manager in California.\nI worked with Mr. Babbe in the 1968 campaign when he was Regional\nChairman of Los Angeles County. He was one of the most outstand-\ning men in the campaign and was well accepted by everyone he\ndealt with. He is senior enough (47 years old) to handle high\nlevel types and would be known as a Nixon man. He has lots of\nenergy and is a hard working individual.\nI think, under the right circumstances, he could be made avail-\nable and he would be an outstanding choice for Campaign Manager.\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nAttachment\nbcc: Mr. Haldeman\nCONFIDENTIAL\nRESUME\nGEORG BABBE\nDate of Birth:\nFebruary 20, 1924 - Butte, Montana\nMarital Status:\nMarried. Four children\nResidence:\nPalos Verdes Estate, California\nEducation:\nAttended elementary, junior and high schools in\nGreat Falls, Montana.\n1941-1944 - Attended Northwestern University\n1946 - returned to Northwestern University and\nreceived degree in Business Administration\nwith distinction in 1947.\nMember of Beta Gamma Sigma, honorary Business\nFraternity\nTaken a number of American Management Association\ncourses.\n1958 - completed Economics of National Security\ncourse from the Industrial College of the\nArmed Forces.\n1960 - Attended Senior Reserve Officers National\nStrategy course at National Board College\nMilitary:\n1944 - Commissioned in the Navy; served in sub-\nmarine detail in the Pacific in World War\nII; currently a Captain in the Naval\nReserve.\nBusiness:\nOctober 1970 to Present - Manager of Pacific\nLighting Properties\nFebruary 1969-October 1970 - Vice President of\nKierulff Electronics, Inc.\nDecember 1967-February 1969 - Director of\nCorporate Services for Ducommun Inc.\nPrior employment was with Southern California\nGas Company for 17 years. Senior positions:\nDivision Manager and Manager of Real Estate\nand Industrial Engineering.\n2\nGeorg Babbe\nCommunity and Civic:\nFormerly Vice President of Los Angeles Junior\nChamber of Commerce.\nChairman, Southwest area of Los Angeles County\nNixon for President Committee\n1962-1969 - Trustee of Centinella Valley Hospital\n1958-1959 - President, United Cerebal Palsy\nAssociation of Los Angeles County\n1959 - Winner of Durward Howes Service Award\nCOMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT\n1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE. N.W\nWASHINGTON D. C 20006\nSeptember 9, 1971\n(202) 333-0920\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nAttached is a report by David A. Keene on the YAF convention\nwhich he attended in Houston, along with Tom Huston, at our\nrequest.\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nAttachment\nbcc: Mr. Gordon C. Strachan\nCONFIDENTIAL\nOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 8, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJEB MAGRUDER\nFROM:\nDAVID A. KEENE\nak\nSUBJECT:\nYAF CONVENTION\nI am sure you already have a pretty clear idea of\nthe results of last week's YAF convention in Houston.\nWe did not come out of the affair as well as I had hoped\nwe might, but I do think we managed to do about as well\nas we had a right to expect.\nAs I indicated before we left for Houston, there\nis a good deal of hostility toward the President in YAF.\nWe never expected to get a favorable reaction from the\ndelegates, but we did want to show them that we are still\ninterested in their views. We succeeded in this goal and\neven managed to moderate the proceedings to some extent.\nThe resolutions as reported to the convention by\nthe Resolutions Committee were relatively moderate. I\nwould describe them as \"responsibly critical\" and most of\nthem passed on the floor without much uproar. However,\nthe convention did insist on beefing up the so-called\n\"Manhattan Twelve\" statement by deleting the final two\nparagraphs. This action moved beyond the conservative\nleadership and put YAF in a position of greater hostility\ntoward the Administration.\nThe \"mock nominating convention\" held on Saturday\nevening was a disaster for all involved. The delegates\nhad three favorites--Governor Reagan, Senator Buckley and\nthe Vice President. but more than twenty names were placed\nin nomination.\nThe YAF leadership evidently decided at some point\nto go with the Vice President.\nJeb Magruder\n2.\nSeptember 8, 1971\nThis decision was opposed, however, by many delegates\nwho believed that the White House wanted the Vice President\nto win as a means of blunting the impression of total\nhostility toward the Administration. This belief was\nstrengthened by rumors that Steve Shadegg and possibly\nDave Jones were attending as White House operatives and\nurging delegates to support the Vice President.\nThe delegates resented this as well as Shadegg's\nalleged offer to, in effect, buy off Chairman Ron Docksai.\nThis resentment combined with a particularly inflammatory\nspeech by former YAF National Chairman, Robert Bauman, set\nthe stage for the Saturday night debacle.\nYou may recall that, when I talked with you prior to\nthe mock convention, I said that we were dealing with a\npaper house, but that we didn't have too much to worry about\nif no one set it ablaze. Well, Bauman was the arsonist.\nThe YAF leadership had also decided to place the\nPresident's name in nomination SO that they could embarrass\nhim. We attempted to stop this without much success, and\ninstead, the kids supporting him announced that they\nconsidered the Vice President's nomination a show of support\nfor the Administration.\nThe \"mock convention\" was, of course, a frivolous\nexercise without much meaning in itself. However, it did\ngive the delegates an opportunity to demonstrate their\ndistaste for the Administration and its programs at this\npoint in time. The emotionalism of the evening can be\nexplained by the fact that many of the kids participating\nworked in the '68 campaign and now feel betrayed.\nThe significance of their discontent lies in the\nfact that they reflect, admittedly in exaggerated form,\nthe feelings of many other conservatives. In this respect,\nthey pose a problem both for us and for senior conservative\nleaders who cannot afford to get too far away from their\nsupporters. People like Senator Goldwater are already\nJeb Magruder\n3.\nSeptember 8, 1971\nbeginning to lose credibility within the conservative\nmovement because of their loyalty to the President, while\nothers are moving steadily to the right of the President\nto avoid this problem.\nI have said in the past that I believe we would be\nfooling ourselves if we adopt the attitude that this\ndiscontent is going to go away. It isn't going to. On\nthe contrary, unless we move to do something about it, we\ncan expect it to get worse.\nThe problem, of course, is that most of their\nobjections are of a substantive nature. This is particularly\ntrue in the areas of defense, wage and price controls, and\nwelfare. YAFers are violently opposed to FAP and wage and\nprice controls. There is no way in which they can be either\nsold on them or convinced to ignore them. And they, like\ntheir senior advisers, are afraid of our apparent strategic\nslippage.\nGiven these problems, however, there are still some\nsteps we might consider:\n1. There are few identifiable \"movement\" conservatives\nin the Administration, and this is a point of\ncontention that comes up whenever conservatives\nmeet.\n2. Many conservatives feel that we are simply not\ninterested in their views. I know that some attempt\nis being made to increase our communications with\nthe right, but I feel this effort should be stepped\nup. A little attention here could go a long way in\n1972.\n70 DE AN\nA\nG\nSeptember 1, 1971\nE.O.\n1\n6-102\nBy-Ef\n,\nLate\n3-24-82\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nAs you know, up to this time Bill Timmons has been handling the\nconvention activities. Now that the site has been selected and\nthe key committees set up, Bill has questioned me as to whether\nor not we expect him to continue in his present role as the\nworking part of the convention begins to move into high gear.\nIt would seem appropriate that we continue to use Bill as our\ndirect liaison with the RNC on all matters pertaining to the\nconvention.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nComment\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nbcc: Mr. Haldeman\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSEPTEMBER 9, 1971\nFOR H.R. HALDEMAN\nAttached is a memorandum from Bill Timmons recommending\nthat John Rhodes be appointed the Chairman of the Platform\nCommittee for the 1972 Republican National Convention.\nJohn Ehrlichman asked that I pass it through you to the\nPresident.\nJohn and I concur with Bill's recommendation that Rhodes\nbe the Chairman of the Committee. We believe that we can\nwork constructively with him and that an early and firm\nselection of a Chairman can avoid some other problems.\nWe plan also to insure that Bryce Harlow plays an influential\nrole as a member of the Platform Committee. (Unless you\nsee some problems with Rhodes' selection, I plan to go\nahead and advise Timmons that John Rhodes is acceptable\nas Chairman. Rhodes would like to have the job.)\nPlease advise.\nKen Cole\ncc:\nBill Timmons\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 8, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJOHN EHRLICHMAN\nFROM:\nWILLIAM E. TIMMONS\nSUBJECT:\n'72 Convention\nWe should soon be thinking about the person who is to\nbe selected Chairman of the Resolutions (Platform)\nCommittee for the 1972 Republican National Convention.\nSenator Hugh Scott and Rep. John Rhodes have both\nexpressed interest in being chairman of this Committee.\nSince Sen. Roman Hruska was Vice Chairman in 1968 under\nEverett Dirksen, he very likely could lay claim to the\npost. You may recall that the Committee was led by\nMel Laird in '64 and Chuck Percy in '60.\nIt is not necessary for the Chairman to be a Member of\nCongress although Senators & Representatives probably\nhave a better grasp of issues and the nuances of drafting\nplatform language.\nSince you have platform responsibilities, could you give me\nguidance on the individual you feel could best do the job\nand also one that you could work comfortably with?\nMy own recommendation is for Rhodes. As Chairman of the\nHouse Policy Committee and as a senior Member of the\nAppropriations Committee he understands issues and their\ninterrelationships. Also, taking a House Member would\nnot force a decision between our loyal friend Hruska and\nour Senate leader Scott. Additionally, Johnny is well\nliked in Congress and the choice would be popular.\nThe only possible liabilities, and they are minor, are\nRhodes' close identification with the Conservative wing\nof the Party and a sometimes streak of western independence.\nOn the key votes we measure loyalty by, John voted against\nthe President only five times: three were SST, one the\nOEO authorization and another on funding the International\nDevelopment Association.\nBRIEF BIO\nRhodes is 55, married with four children, served in Air\nCorps in World War II, law degree from Harvard, member\nof a variety of social-service-veterans associations.\nJohn is in his 10th term, having been first elected in\n1952. He served on both Education & Labor and Interior\nCommittees before joining the Appropriations Committee.\nHe has been Policy Chairman since 1963.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 8, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJEB MAGRUDER\nFROM:\nWILLIAM E. TIMMONS\nBT\nSUBJECT:\n'72 Convention Appointments\nThere are a number of decisions which should be made soon\nand some which may be deferred regarding key posts at next\nyear's national Republican Convention. Most of these\ndecisions are for early planning and need not be announced\nuntil next spring and summer.\nAttached are the major official jobs for the Convention,\na brief description of each and my personal recommendations.\nThe Attorney General will certainly want to discuss these\nwith the President and Bob Haldeman at some convenient\ntime. When decisions are made, please let me know for\nplanning and follow-up.\ncc: H. R. Haldeman\nFLOOR LEADER: An important publicity post. Should be\nidentifiable personality who understands convention\nmechanics, politics and rules. Job is to represent\ncandidate's interests on convention floor, make motions or\nspeak to them for candidate, serves as conduit for infor-\nmation to key delegates. Floor leader is in constant\ncommunication with campiagn manager and podium.\nRecent Floor Leaders have been:\n- - 1968 - Rogers Morton\n-- 1964 - Curtis for Goldwater\n-- 1960 - ???\nI recommend that Hugh Scott be asked to assume this role.\nThe Pennsylvanian Senator is GOP Senat Leader and under-\nstands House rules from his years in that Body. A former\nNational GOP Chairman who supported Rocky in '68 and\nScranton in '64, but a Senator who with several exceptions\nsupports the President's legislative program. If there\nis a revolt from the liberal camp over some platform\nplank or over the nomination of the Vice President, Hugh\ncan communicate with the left wing. Also it is believed\nScott will take instructions from the campaign manager.\nHe expects to have a prominent role in the convention and\nhas already sent signals for the Platform Chairmanship\nor, failing that, Rules Chairman. It is felt Scott must\nhave some assignment or he and his friends will be\nextremely upset. It is believed the Floor Leader position\nis controllable.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nNOMINATOR AND SECONDERS: Key actors in Convention drama.\nNew Rules will probably be adopted to limit nomination\nand seconding addresses to a total of fifteen minutes, to\nbe allocated as each major candidate determines. (Favorite\nsons and symbolic candidates will have five minutes total).\nIt will probably be smart to have a number of speakers with\nvery short remarks to show broad support for the President.\nA good spot for Governors, especially Reagan & Rockefeller.\nPossibility for Cabinet officers.\nRecent nominators and seconders have been:\n-- 1968 - Agnew, Hatfield, Baker, Volpe & Ogilvie\n-- 1964 - (Goldwater) Dirksen, Knowland, Clare Luce,\nTower, Halleck\n-- 1960 - Hatfield, Kuchel, Chris Del Soto, Jewel\nRogers, Taft, John Roosevelt, Mrs. Andrew\nGavin, Javits\nThe decision for these posts should be made after the\nDemocratic National Convention and be used to the best media\nadvantage for the President.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nRULES CHAIRMAN: Presides over convention Rules Committee\nwhich makes rules changes recommendations to full convention.\nImportant the Chairman be loyal and familiar with House\nRules as well as existing RNC rules for a National Convention.\nIn preparation for the '72 Convention, the RNC has already\ncreated a Rules Committee to study possible changes, hear\narguments, etc. Normally, if elected delegates from\ntheir states, members of this Committee become actual\nConvention Rules Committee since they will have had most\nfamiliarity with issues. Former Rep. Bill Cramer is\nChairman of the RNC Rules Committee.\nI recommend that Cramer be continued as Rules Chairman for\nthe Convention. He is an able lawyer, thoroughly conversant\nwith House and RNC Rules. He is in best position to carry\nforward recommendations and should work well with the\ncampaign staff.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nKEYNOTER: Gives major speech on first evening of Convention.\nMaximum television exposure, sets scene and tone for\nConvention. Selection must be carefully made in light of\npolitical circumstances in August of 1972 and image we need\nto project.\nRecent keynoters have been:\n- - 1968 - Dan Evans\n- - 1964 - Mark Hatfield\n- - 1960 - Walter Judd\nI recommend that the selection of the keynoter be held until\nafter the Democratic National Convention but that Chairman\nDole be charged with stopping any lobbying by interested\npoliticians. Should one individual build up broad support\nfor the job and for campaign reasons not be selected, there\nwill be friction.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nARRANGEMENTS VICE CHAIRMAN: Is Member of Republican National\nConvention who is assigned all logistics for Convention.\nResponsible for Subcommittees on Housing, Transportation,\nProgram, News Media and Tickets/Badges. Vital post to\noperations.\nRecent Vice Chairmen have been:\n-- 1968 - Don Ross\n- - 1964 - Bob Pierce\n- - 1960 - Jaren Jones\nThis post has already been filled by Dick Herman of Nebraska.\nDick was regional director for '68 campaign, worked on\ntransition staff for personnel, held key position in Nixon\neffort in Miami Convention. Has already been most helpful.\nCHIEF PAGE: Usually a young man to organize and supervise\nofficial Convention pages. Pages are assigned each delegation\nand RNC offices, media, etc. Not a major post but one to\nreward friends and to establish network of intelligence for\ncampaign operation (actually states appoint most of their\nown pages). Chief Page should work closely with Nixon Youth\norganization.\nRecent Chief Pages have been:\n-- 1968 - Lance Tarrance\n- - 1964 - Michael Gill\n-- 1960 - Tom Van Sickle\nI recommend Jay Wilkinson for the spot. Jay worked in the\n'68 convention and campaign. Served at the Pierre and White\nHouse. Ran for Congress. Son of prominent sports figure.\nIs an ordained Minister.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nSERGEANT-AT-ARMS: Administrative head of convention hall\nsecurity and ushers. Responsible for validating tickets,\nparking permits, etc. No law enforcement experience\nnecessary but loyalty and ability very important.\nRecent Sergeants at Arms have been:\n-- 1968 - Jack Sherwood\n- - 1964 - Robert Carter\n- - 1960 - Edward McGinnis\nThis appintment has already been made with approval of the\nAttorney General. He is Ody Fish, former GOP State Chairman\nof Wisconsin.\nPLATFORM CHAIRMAN: Presides over the hearings and sessions\nof the Resolutions Committee. Presents report to the delegates\nfor adoption. Extremely important and difficult post. Must\nunderstand President's policy, national issues, public and\ndelegate attitudes, etc. Hugh Scott and John Rhodes both\nwant job. Roman Hruska probably would like assignment since\nhe was Dirksen's Vice Chairman in 1968.\nRecent Platform Chairmen have been:\n-- 1968 - Everett Dirksen\n- - 1964 - Melvin Laird\n- - 1960 - Charles Percy\nI recommend Rhodes get the nod. Have also asked John\nEhrlichman for his views on best man. Johnny has been\nChairman of the House GOP Policy Committee for nine years.\nServes on Appropriations Committee and has also been on\nInterior and Education & Labor Committees. Harvard lawyer,\nWorld War II Air Corps, 55 years old, married with four\nchildren. He has voted \"wrong\" on only five occasions over\n2-1/2 years: three on SST, one on OEO authorization, and\none on funding International Development Association.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nPARLIAMENTARIAN: Makes recommendations to the Chairman on\nall questions of rules, procedures and precedents relating\nto the Convention. He must be a loyalist and personally\ncompatible with the Permanent Chairman. Since the House\nRules are used, the Parliamentarian should be a House Member.\nRules Committee experience is helpful.\nRecent Parliamentarians have been:\n- - 1968 - H. Allen Smith\n- - 1964 - Katherine St. George\n- - 1960 - Katherine St. George\nI recommend that Smith again be given the assignment. He\nis best authority on House Rules.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nSECRETARY: Normally held by the woman who is Secretary to\nthe Republican National Committee. This is an important\nposition that has seldom been effectively used. The\nSecretary's principal role is to call the roll of the\nstates, announce tallies, etc. Therefore, the Secretary\nis on camera a lot. She should be an attractive and\ncompetent lady. Mrs. Connie Bailey of Vermont is RNC\nSecretary but does not project well and is unattractive\nphysically.\nRecent Secretaries have been:\n- - 1968 - Mrs. Connie Bailey\n-- - - 1964 - Mrs. C. D. Buck\n-- 1960 - Mrs. E. E. Heffelfinger\nI recommend that we change precedent in 1972 and have the\nNational Co-Chairman, Mrs. Anne Armstrong, serve as Secretary\nof the Convention. Anne is popular, attractive, dignified,\nand possesses a pleasant voice. She is from important Texas\nand currently will have virtually no official role in the\nConvention.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nPERMANENT CHAIRMAN: Presides over the Convention for all\nbusiness, including adoption of Committee reports (Platform),\nnominations and selection of candidates, acceptance speeches,\netc. If the Convention continues to follow the House of\nRepresentatives Rules it seems appropriate that a House\nMember be the permanent Chairman. Jerry Ford has expressed\ninterest in the job and most politicians expect he will\nbe named (actually, he must be elected by the Convention\nitself). This probably the most important Convention\nresponsibility.\nRecent permanent chairmen have been:\n- - 1968 - Gerald Ford\n- - 1964 - Thruston Morton\n- - 1960 - Charles Halleck\nI recommend that Ford again be given the assignment.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nTEMPORARY CHAIRMAN: Presides over the early non-working\nsessions of the Convention (organization session and also\nkeynote session). This is a prestigious appointment but\none that can do relatively little damage to us. A good\nspot to expose a liberal or minority Republican or candidate\nin need.\nRecent temporary chairmen have been:\n-- - - 1968 - Edward Brooke\n- - 1964 - Mark Hatfield\n-- 1960 - Cecil Underwood\nI am not prepared to make a recommendation at this time\nand believe the post should be held open until after the\nDemocratic Convention. Probably should go to a Governor\n(Holton, Ogilvie?) if that will not hurt general election\neffort.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nSeptember 1, 1971\nDETERMINED T3 AN\n2\nBy\n3-22-82\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nSUBJECT:\n'72 Convention\nEnclosed for your approval or disapproval is a memorandum from\nBill Timmons regarding hotel accommodations, transportation,\nand seating for major officials in the Administration. Bill\nis being pressed by the RNC Arrangements Committee for answers\nto these various questions.\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nEnclosure\nbcc: Mr. Haldeman\nCONFIDENTIAL\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 30, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJEB MAGRUDER\nFROM:\nWILLIAM E. TIMMONS\nSUBJECT:\n72 Convention\nThe RNC Arrangements Committee is pushing me for answers\nto questions about hotel accommodations, transportation\nand convention seats for major officials in the Administration.\nWhile White House personnel will be located with the campaign\nstaff and President and Vice Presidential parties, Cabinet\nand subcabinet officials probably could best serve by being\nhoused with their home state delegations. Also, we need\nto know how many of the subcabinet and agency heads and\ntheir staff will be attending the convention. There are two\napproaches: we can tell them who is to attend, where they 11\nstay, etc. or we can ask them who in their department will\nbe in attendance. I prefer the latter course and recommend\nI be authorized to contact each Cabinet officer and agency\nhead to request information.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nIt is my hope that the above officials will be honored guests\nof the RNC for the convention and that seats and ground\ntransportation will be provided by the National Committee.\nHowever, airline transportation and hotel rooms and charges\nwill be the responsibility of the individual Cabinet officer.\nAPPROVE\nDISAPPROVE\nAttached are listings of the principal officers who may be\nincluded in your consideration, however, I question including\nanybody from regulatory bodies.\nIncidentally, I anticipate that George Shultz and his\nprincipal personnel will be housed with the White House\nstaff.\n1. William P. Rogers\nSecretary of State\n2. John B. Connally\nSecretary of Treasury\n3. Melvin Laird\nSecretary of Defense\n4. John Mitchell\nThe Attorney General\n5. Winton Blount\nThe Postmaster General\n6. Rogers Morton\nSecretary of Interior\n7. Clifford Hardin\nSecretary of Agriculture\n8. Maurice Stans\nSecretary of Commerce\n9. James Hodgson\nSecretary of Labor\n10. Elliot Richardson\nSecretary of HEW\n11. George Romney\nSecretary of HUD\n12. John Volpe\nSecretary of Transportation\n13. Robert F. Froehlke\nSecretary of the Army\n14. Robert Seamans\nSecretary of the Air Force\n15. John Chafee\nSecretary of the Navy\n16. George Bush\nAmbassador to the U.N.\n17. David Kennedy\nAmbassador At Large\n18. Dr. Arthur Burns\nChairman, Federal Reserve Board\n19. Dr. Edward David\nScience Advisor to the President\n20. Virginia Knauer\nConsumer Advisor to the President\n21. Paul McCracken\nChairman, Council of Economic\nAdvisors\n22. Russell Train\nChairman, Environmental Quality\nCouncil\n23.\nDirector of OEO\n24. George Lincoln\nDirector of OEP\n25. Nils Boe\nDirector of Intergovernmental\nRelations\n26. Carl Gilbert\nSpecial Representative for\nTrade Negotiations\n27. Clay Whitehead\nDirector, Office of Tele-\ncommunications Policy\n28. Donald Whitehead\nFederal Co-Chairman,\nAppalachian Regional Comm.\n29. William Ruckelshaus\nAdministrator, EPA\n30. William Brown\nChairman, EEOC\n31. Robert Kunzig\nAdministrator, GSA\n32. Dr. James Fletcher\nAdministrator, NASA\n33. Thomas Kleppe\nAdministrator, SBA\n34. Frank Shakespeare\nDirector, USIA\n35. Donald Johnson\nAdministrator, VA\n36. Dr. John Hannah\nAdministrator, AID\n37. Joseph Blatchford\nDirector, ACTION\nLIST OF THOSE NOT INCLUDED\nChairman, AEC Commission (Jim Schlesinger)\nDirector, Arms Control Agency\nChairman, CAB\nChairman, Civil Service Commission\nPresident, Exim Bank (Henry Kearn)\nGovernor, Farm Credit Administrator\nChairman, FFC (Dean Burch)\nChairman, FDIC\nDirector, Federal Mediation & Conciliation Service\nChairman, FPC\nChairman, FTC\nChairman, Foreign Claims Settlement\nChairman, Indian Claims Council\nChairman, ICC\nChairman, National Commission on Consumer Finance\nAdministrator, National Credit Union Admin.\nChairman, National Foundation on the Arts & Humanities\nChairman, NLRB\nDirector, National Science Foundation\nPresident, Overseas Private Investment Corp.\nChairman, Renegotiation Board\nChairman, SEC\nDirector, Selective Service System\nChairman, SACB\nCommissioner, Tariff Commission (Catherine May)\nChairman, TVA\nChairman, FHLB Board (Preston Martin)\nChairman, Federal Maritime Commission (Helen Bentley)\nPresident, FNMA (Oakley Hunter)\nSeptember 8, 1971\n6-102\n3-24-82\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nTHE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nBOB HALDEMAN -\nFROM:\nHARRY DENT Asso\nSUBJECT:\nKentucky Governor's Race\nAttached is a confidential report on the Kentucky governor's\nrace. This is the only governor's race in 1971 in which we\nhave a candidate. He is very handsome and is running a good\nrace. His name is Tom Emberton, and he has the full backing\nof Governor Louie Nunn. The polls show Emberton running\nbehind but only by a small margin. In fact, this is a good\nsign, since he is a new face on the statewide scene. As you\ncan see from the attachment, one straw vote indicates a toss-\nup and the major editors across the state split evenly on who\nis ahead.\nA big factor in our favor is the Democrat split caused by\nFord's primary victory over ex-Judge Combs.\nThis will probably be one of the few real weathervane votes\nthat political writers and political pros can bill as a\nreferendum on the Nixon Administration between now and 1972.\nAs you will see from the poll information in the attachment,\nthe President is currently riding very high. This seems to\nbe based largely on a quick poll taken after the President's\neconomic message.\nWhat these people are crying for now is a commitment from\nhere for anywhere from $200,000 to $300,000 to be set aside\nfor TV during the closing weeks of the campaign. Governor\nNunn has already helped them raise a fair amount of money\nand they have put aside $150,000 for election day activities.\nThis is not to be touched under any circumstances.\n- 2 -\nThey have raised about $500,000 and expect to spend\naround $1 million. They think it will be all they can do\nto survive financially between now and election day. What\nthey want is assurance that they will be able to have TV\nmoney. They say they will not touch any of this money and\nthat it could be controlled so that it would be used only\nfor that purpose.\nThey need to know as soon as possible whether there is any\npossibility of getting any commitment from here.\nI have talked to Governor Nunn, the State Chairman, and the\ncampaign leaders. They all endorse this request very\nstrongly.\nANALYSIS Or RACE IN KENTUCKY, NOVEMBER 4, 1211\nI. Post Primary Election Scene\nA. The Democratic primary election was won by Lt. Gov. Wendell Ford.\nFord, whose background includes the State Senate and the national presidency\nof the Jaycees, is a resident of Owensboro, Daviess County.\nFord was an upset victor over former Governor Bert Combs in the eyes of the press.\nHowever, the preprimary surveys conducted by the Emberton organization indicated\nthat Ford would defeat Combs on the basis of:\n*Combs lack of credibility stemming from problems with\nhis administration and his resignation from the Federal\nBench to seek the governorship again.\n*The ability of Ford to pin the 'high taxes' label on Combs.\nIn fact, the first Emberton survey in December, 1970, indicated the difficulties\nCombs would have in overcoming the above two points. Despite a strenuous primary in\nwhich nearly $1,500,000 was reported being spent by the two, a very low turnout marked\nthe Democratic Primary. In fact less than 10% of the state's registered voters played\na part in Ford's success.\nCombs' running mate for Lieutenant Governor, Julian Carroll, was successful in the\nprimary however. This couples two bitter, former enemies in an uneasy alliance at prese\nIt is interesting to note that continuing rumors of problems between Ford and Carroll\npersist.\nIt is also significant to note that both Ford and Carroll are from western Kentucky\nwhich means a blackout in terms of the top of the ticket from the major population areas\nof the state in a commonwealth in which regional loyalties are strong.\nII. The Image of Nunn and Nixon Administrations\nAll current surveys conducted by the Emberton organization indicate basic\nsatisfaction with both Administrations.\nThis credibility is important to an Emberton victory.\nIt would appear that the Ford-Carroll camp recognizes the need to destroy the\nimage of the Nunn and Nixon Administrations as the majority of negative comment coming\nfrom them at present is anti-Nunn and anti-Nixon.\nThe Ford-Carroll operation has been touted as the start of the national \"Dump\nNixon\" movement by the Democratic party in the state.\nTo date, Governor Nunn has refrained from entering the hustings. It is anticipated\nthat he will be an active participant on the campaign trail after Labor Day.\nIII. The Ford Strategy in the Post Primary Period\nThe Ford Strategy in the primary is being repeated in the General Election. He\nis extremely abusive of Tom Emberton, Nixon and Nunn. His tactics in the primary\nwere more rough than any this observer has witnessed in a long career of watching\npolitics. He employs the 'big lie' technique and does it with a straight face. He\nhas benefited from the fact that major media in the state simply report his comments\nwithout juding their accuracy or truth.\nAt present, he is attempting to put the label of more taxes on Emberton and\ncontinually emphasizes the economic 'failures' of the Nixon and Nunn Administrations.\nHis major problem in this post-primary period has been to try and heal the division\nwithin the Democratic Party. For a time, he acted in a very high-handed manner, but\nevidently convinced by his advisors of the need for reconciliation, he has, in the last\nseveral weeks, attempted to enroll former members of the Combs team. He has\nhad some success in this regard.\nDuring the primary, Ford made extensive use of radio and newspaper advertising.\nHis television schedule, on which he makes a poor appearance, was quite limited.\nHe spent over $450,000 reported on his primary race, however.\nIV. Post Primary Strategy for Emberton\nDuring the primary, Tom Emberton maintained a very low profile. He held a\nseries of issue hearings which generated favorable but low key press.\nImmediately after the primary, this strategy changed. It had been decided\nthat if Combs won the primary, the low profile would continue to the fall in the\nhope that negative Combs sentiment would build of its own accord.\nIf Ford, however, won, in order to demonstrate that all was well with the GOP\ncampaign and that we were not down and out because of the Ford victory, it had been\nearly determined that we would surface immediately following the primary and using\n'jag' theories of media exposure, attempt to mount a series of high profile exposures\nover the summer months.\nThis strategy has been implemented through a series of dramatic issue pronouncements\nused to demonstrate Emberton as a decisive individual; some paid television utilizing 'hi,\nimage' spots, a limited amount of newspaper exposure advertising in Republican areas,\nand very strenuous campaigning (dawn to midnight) on Emberton's part. (For example,\nplant gates at dawn have been the rule since June).\nThe most impact issue to date, has been Emberton's decision to remove the five per\ncent sales tax on food. This issue has tremendous popular appeal. Our main problem,\nas will be noted below, is the failure of nearly one half of the state to be aware of\nthe nominee's position. Because of budget exigencies, our exposure on this has been\nlimited even though we were front page headlines at the time of the announcement.\nIn all this, it is essential to remember, that we must try and dominate our\npositions through paid time this gets our message across in the way we wish it\nrecevied by the voter rather than relying on the trusthworthiness of the media!\nIn all these months, we have employed the criss-cross theory of an event\nin one end of the state in the morning, another at noon in another location, etc.,\nin order to give us multi-area media exposure during an average day.\nEmberton has stressed program and principle in an attempt to head off the Ford\npersonal invective. Emberton is a highly personable, very strong, popular campaigner.\nHis one-on-one contacts are excellent.\nIn the joint appearances to date, Emberton has come off the points on leader\nalthough he has not put Ford down for the knock out.\nThe Emberton organization at the county levels is relatively complete but it\nis yet to be judged in terms of its effectiveness.\nInitial volunteer ploys such as the neighborhood walks (the candidates walk the\nneighborhoods as a bait to get volunteers to canvass in large numbers) in the metro\nareas have been quite successful. For example, over 100 volunteers covered 5300\nhomes in northern Kentucky in 90 plus degree heat last Saturday.\nWe are building toward a 'neighbors' strategy for the last two weeks in\nthe larger metroareas (Northern Ky., Louisville, Lexington, Ashland, Bowling Green,\nPaducah).\nThe support from former Combs supporters has been most impressive. A strong\nDEmocratic organization is at work with its own field staff in three of the state's\nseven congressional Districts and is daily growing. Endorsements from significant\nDemocrats have been building. This is a major source of encouragement.\nThe Combs-Ford wounds have not healed! Any observer of Southern/Border state\npolitics knows how effective such feuds can be in terms of adding votes for the GOP\ncolumn on election day.\nV. Immediate Goals\nThe immediate goal of the Emberton effort is to continue the building process\nso successfully begun in these summer months. Polls indicate that Emberton is\nnow approaching the 70 per cent recognition factor but in view of Ford's high\nfactor (over 90) this gap must be closed in the next weeks.\nIn addition, when pressed there is a relatively low-undecided factor in the\nhead on encounters which indicates the aftermath of the particularly active primary.\nAccordingly, we believe in the next four weeks we must:\na. Consolidate recognition\nb. Provide depth to the Emberton image\nC. Stir our own troops\nd. Begin the negative attack on Ford (this is vital to keep the Combs People with us)\ne. Dominate our areas of media television and weekly press and dominate through\nour own material rather than relying on a generally hostile press\nf. Continue the development of our volunteer team with an emphasis on trial projects\ng. Continue development of our special groups (Drs., lawyers, farmers, for\nselective direct mail in the fall)\nh. Continue the candidate's high exposure schedule\nVI. Budgets\nWendell Ford and Julian Carroll expended (on record which does not include many\nof their county committees) over $850,000 in the primary. Money is not a worry for them.\nTheir professional staff far outnumbers our own at present. The signs of\ntheir affluence are around us and the recent support they have received from COPE\n(despite many unions favorable comment to us on our food tax stand) indicates that\nnational labor will be pouring in money for them.\nFord's campaign manager, the director of a large rural electric cooperative,\nis rumored to use his organization's funds for political participation. This could\nbe done through personal service contracts with the money then passed through an\nindividual's books to the campaign. This would explain some $220,000 to Ford from\nonly 16 donors in the primary many of whom would not appear to be in the economic\nbracket to afford $15,000 plus contributions individually.\nThe Emberton campaign to date has expended circa $475,000. In addition we have\nabout another $200,000 in available sources at hand.\nOur total budget is about $1,200,000 contrasting with the Democratic budget\nof circa $1,600,000 to $1,750,000.\nThe greatest need at present is to consolidate our television pesture.\nWe must immediately purchase our television for continuing exposure and for\nthe big fall push. Now is the time to buy October television to insure the best\navailable time rather than take 'left over primes.\n(more)\n-4-\nAccordingly we seek $250,000 - 300,000 from national sources.\nWe believe we can generate from $800,000 - 900,000 in Kentucky.\nThe uses of the national money would be as follows:\n$250,000 for television time\n60,000 for specialized direct mail (target groups with a negative sell)\n45,000 for a 'neighbors' program in metro areas during the last month.\nThe issue is very simple.\n1. The polls indicate Emberton can win.\n2. The impression Emberton makes is superb\none of the really dynamic young\nmen to come on the GOP scene in major level politics recently.\n3. The issue in this election is, in part, an endorsement of the Nixon Administration\nAll available media emphasizes this constantly.\n4. As the only contested race in the nation, we must bear the burden of attention.\nThis means that every national opposition source is aiding our opponent.\n5. With the new economic policy of the Nixon Administration, (and Kentucky's\neconomic situation), it will be a matter of course for the news media to judge\nKentucky's race this year as an endorsement for the President.\n6. In short, because of the national attention, the cost of the Kentucky race\nis high but such a cost is a 'absolute bargain basement special' if we can hold this\nvital race and provide the beginning of the GOP success for 1972.\nWe believe that given the strengths of the Nixon, Nunn team; given the\nattractiveness, willingness and strength of the nominee and his slate; and given\nthe growing possibilities of his organization victory is possible.\nBUT, the time for the money to be fed is TODAY.\nToday we can buy the best television time. Tomorrow we get the left-overs.\nEvery dollar on the above budget will be put into television time. but the emphasis\nmust be television now and the best for October.\nFurther, with our television budget in hand, we can realistically utilize our\nown dollars where they must count at the local levels and in other essential forms\nof communication.\nFinally, our oppoisition was forced into accepting a spending limitation on\nmedia that we proposed\naccordingly, given the above budget now\nrealistically,\neffectively and wisely spent on this medium, we can dominate the market with a proven\nattractive force\nTom Emberton.\nIt's a dollar spent wisely in 1971 to insure victory in '72!!!\nTO: John Kerr\n8/26/71\nSome random observations from the formal report presented to the\nEmberton for Governor Committee covering the public opinion survey\nconducted in the State of Kentucky during the week of August 15, 1971.\n(Note: As in the previous surveys, Professor Dan Nimmo was project\nconsultant)\nThis was a 'reviver' survey covering areas previously polled in the\nDecember, April and early July interview schedules.\nCirca 600 interviews were conducted in metropolitan counties only\n(previous schedules were in excess of 1700 interviews).\nIncluded in the schedule were interviews in Jefferson County (Louisville),\nFayette (Lexington), Boyd (Ashland), McCracken (Paducah), Graves (May-\nfield), Warren (Bowling Green), Daviess (Owensboro), Henderson (Henderson)\nFranklin (Frankfort), Woodford (Versailles), Scott (Georgetown), Madison\n(Richmond), the northern Kentucky complex of Campbell, Boone and Kenton,\nPike (Pikeville), and selected areas in the Fifth District including\nPulaski, Bell and Jackson Counties but not the rural areas of this\nDistrict.\nThe prime thrust of the survey was to:\n1. Determine if the Emberton high profile (begun as of June 15) was\ngaining recognition.\n2. Determine if Emberton was building voter support from the behind\nposition he occupied in the December and April polls.\n3. Determine if the Nunn Administration continued in a favorable light.\n4. Determine if there continued to be support for the Nixon Administra-\ntion.\nOn the basis of the current endeavor, it would appear that all four\nabove points are positive for the Emberton campaign.\n1. Recognition: Wendell Ford - 90.1\nTom Emberton - 76.3 (67 per cent in July\n28 per cent in April )\n2. Head on:\nWendell Ford\n37.9\nTom Emberton\n32.7\nA. B. Chandler\n7.5\nBill Smith (AIP)\n.5\n(This is excellent progress and indicates the election is moving in a\nCIVIC SERVICE INCORPORATED ANALYSIS\nST. LOUIS, MISSOURI\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nfavorable direction for the Emberton effort. The July support for\nEmberton 27.9 versus 46.8 for Ford)\nThe above head-on obviously reflects the success of Emberton's issue\nposture on the food tax issue. It is important to note, however, that\nin the semantic deferential and ideal candidate phase of the schedule\nthat Emberton's image is settling in a 'personal pattern' rather an\n'issue orientation' focus\nthis factor should aid the continuing\nupward movement of the Emberton candidacy.\nOn the sales tax on food issue:\nOver 88 per cent indicated their approval of removing said tax.\nOver 55 per cent of all voters were able to identify Emberton as\nthe nominee who had proposed doing away with this tax.\n2. The Nunn Administration continues with a strong degree of voter\napproval. One question was deliberately loaded to reflect the attack\nthat Ford is now waging aginst the Nunn team. Despite such loading\non the 'honesty' syndrome, Nunn scored most favorably indicating that\nFord will have a hard row to hoe in seeling voters on his negative\ntheme against the Governor.\n3. The Nixon Administration likewise continued with favorable appeal:\nSupport for the President's recent economic actions:\nStrongly approve\n13.4\nApprove\n56.5\nDisapprove\n18.5\nDisapprove strongly\n3.5\nDon't Know\n8.2\nThere was an element of questioning as to exactly what the package was\ndesigned to accomplish.\nSupport for the Nixon Administration:\nPresident's approval rating:\nStrongly approve\n8.5\nApprove\n52.5\nDisapprove\n22.5\nStrongly disapprove\n3.5\nNOTE: It is evident from the virulent attacks by Ford and his\nteam on the Nixon and Nunn Administrations that their own polling\nis presenting this same positive picture of the national and state\nadministrations and hence must be negatively clouded for Ford to\nhold his own this November. Result: Ford's attempt to smear Nunn\nand to raise the spectre of a new depression as the 'result' of\nsupposed Nixon failures.\nCIVIC SERVICE INCORPORATED ANALYSIS\nST. LOUIS, MISSOURI\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nCONF IDENTIAL\nHead on choice between contestants in 1968 presidential race:\n(Note this was a forced closed end choice it was interesting\nthat few voters, however, volunteered an alternative such as\nKennedy, Reagan or McGovern)\nNixon 47.5\nHumphrey 24.7\nWallace 13.2\nOther 3.7\nDon't Know 11.5\nThe next survey, including rural areas is scheduled for the first\nweek in September.\nCIVIC SERVICE INCORPORATED ANALYSIS\nST. LOUIS, MISSOURI\nWASHINGTON, D.C.\nat Kenturelay State Fair\n4/28/71\nIndipendent booth ballots:\nyouth Booth\nEmberton\n2423\nFord\n2431\nChandler\n259\nSmith (AIP)\n248\n15y. assoc. of Older Persons\nEmberton 50%\nford\n38%\nChandler\n7%\nSmith\n4%\nPoll by ty. Post of Editors:\n& thought Emberton us bad\n8 \" Ford \" \"\n10 \" toss-up\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 3, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nH. R. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nHARRY S. DENT DSD\nThought you would like to know that we got much good play\nout of the Kissinger briefing for the Billy Graham group.\nThis has been played very much in Southern Baptist and other\nreligious publications. Attached is some information on\nthis subject. Dr. Criswell, a former Southern Baptist\nConvention president, announced that he changed his views on\nthe proposed trip to China after the briefing.\nAlso, Paul Harvey has really come through strongly for the\nPresident as per the memo I sent you yesterday on this subject.\nCC: Dr. Kissinger\nBilly Graham\nAugust 12; 1971\n2\nBaptist Press\nCriswell said Nixon was going to Peking because Red China must be reckoned with\nas a world power, and because of the deep cleavage in the Communist world. \"We don't\nwant Russia speaking for the entire Communist world,' he said.\nHe added that Russia and China are deeply divided, practically and ideologically;\nthat the Russians are blunt realists and the Chinese are zealous idealists; and that China\ncould not challenge U. S. power for years to come but Russia could now.\nCriswell added that the President's visit to China would seek to improve relations\nwith a growing world power, but that America will not allow Southeast Asia to fall to the\nCommunists.\n-30-\nLoan Service of Mission\nAgency Expands Nationally\n8/12/71\nGLORIETA, N. M. (BP) Southern Baptist Home Mission Board voted here to\nexpand the work of its Division of Church loans by eliminating limitations for its work only\nto \"new territory\" areas and expanding its activities to the entire nation.\nSince 1959, operating on the basis of limited funds and resources, the division\nhad confined its work to those state conventions (organized since 1940) where most new\nchurches were being started and where local financing was hard to find because Southern\nBaptists were not well known, board officials said.\nRobert H. Kilgore of Atlanta, director of the division, said needs in the states where\nSouthern Baptists are well established are greater now than in 1959.\nHe said weekly requests from these areas have been far between 10 to 20 loans. The\ndivision has made arrangements for expanded borrowing of funds to be used for these loans.\nHowever, Kilgore does not expect money to be the major assistance.\n\"Counseling to correlate the purchase of land and erection of buildings as it relates\nto the financial program of the church will be our major commodity, he said.\nHe cited an increasing number of churches which have been abused because of unwise\nfinancial evressive building and even erecting the wrong type of building.\n\"Quite often the location of the facilities in the community are not planned in\nrelationship to the changing complex of the community or the growing edge of the community,\"\nhe said.\nFinancial assistance may run second to counseling but funds will go for two pur-\nposes: (1) the purchase of church sites where new churches are being organized, and\n(2) where local financing cannot be obtained reasonably, the division will make loans\nas it is able.\nThe loans will not exceed $1,000,000 for 20 years, and they are made for the \"going\nrate\" of interest based on current economic conditions and sound business principles.\n\"Mostly our rate of interest is determined by the rate we are required to pay for\nfunds we borrow,\" Kilgore said. Currently that rate is 8 1/2 percent, but the division does\nnot charge for its services.\nKilgore stressed the fact that the present action will not alter the division's ability\nto serve the churches in the newer areas.\n-30-\nHome Mission Board Names\nThree New Staff Members\n8/12/71\nGLORIETA, N. M. (BP) The Southern Baptist Home Mission Board, in annual session\nat Glorieta Baptist Assembly here, elected three new staff members to the national mission\nagency with offices in Atlanta.\nE. Warren Rust, former president of the Tennessee Baptist Convention and pastor in\nSt. Louis, Mo. was named assistant director of the Division of Associational Services; and\nRoy W. Owen of the board staff, was appointed associate director of that division.\n-more-\nNATIONAL OFFICE\n460 James Robertson Parkway\n(BP)\nNashville, Tennessee 37219\nBAPTIST PRESS\nTelephone (615) 244-2355\nW. C. Fields, Director\nNews Service of the Southern Baptist Convention\nJim Newton, Assistant Director\nBUREAUS\nATLANTA Walker L. Knight, Chief, 1350 Spring St., N.W., Atlanta, Ga. 30309, Telephone (404) 873-4041\nDALLAS Billy Keith, Chief, 103 Baptist Building. Dallas, Texas 75201, Telephone (214) 741-1996\nNASHVILLE (Baptist Sunday School Board) Lynn M. Davis, Jr., Chief, 127 Ninth Ave., N., Nashville, Tenn. 37203,\nTelephone (615) 254-1631\nRICHMOND Jesse C. Fletcher, Chief, 3806 Monument Ave., Richmond, Va. 23230, Telephone (703)\n353-0151\nAugust 12, 1971\nWASHINGTON\nW. Barry Garrett, Chief, 200 Maryland Ave., N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002, Telephone\n(202) 544-4226\n30 Religious Leaders Briefed\nBy White House on Red China\nWASHINGTON (BP)--About 30 religious leaders selected by Evangelist Billy Graham,\nincluding about eight Southe rn Baptists, received an hour-long briefing here at the White\nHouse on U. S. foreign policy involving Red China.\nThe briefing was led by Henry A. Kissinger, assistant to the President for national\nsecurity affairs who made the arrangements in Peking recently for Pr sident Nixon's forth-\ncoming visit to mainland China.\nKissinger talked to the 30 religious leaders for about an hour on basic principles of\nU. S. foreign policy and relations with Red China, with the final 30 minutes of the\nbriefing devoted to questions and duscussion by the group.\nFollowing the briefing, the group went into President Nixon's office for a greeting.\nThe President did not attend the briefing itself, which was held in the White House cabinet\nroom\nAt the beginning of the meeting, Graham explained that the President and Kissinger\nhad earlier given him a private briefing. He said he was SO impressed that he suggested\nthat the White House invite a number of his friends for a similar briefing.\nAbout 30 persons suggested by Graham, most of them representing the conservative\nand evangelical stream of religious viewpoint, were invited.\nSouthern Baptists who attended were W. A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist Church,\nDallas; Porter W. Routh, executive secretary of the Southern Baptist Executive Committee;\nRobert Denny, general secratary of the Baptist Wor Alliance; Graham and his associate\nT. W. Wilson of the Graham team.\nOther Baptist laymen attending were Fred Rhodes, deputy administrator of Veterans\nAdministration and former vice president of the SBC; W. Maxey Jarman of Nashville, former\nchairman of the board of Genesco, Inc.; and Bill Meade of Dallas, a bakery executive.\nAmong other churchmen who attended were such persons as radio commentator Paul\nHarvey, Chrsstianity Today Editor Harold Lindsell, Campus Crusade Director Bill Bright,\nFellowship of Christian Athletes Director Jim Jefferies, World Vision Director Stan Mooneyham,\nand others.\nMost of those attending would have \"no comment\" on the briefing, saying that\nGraham told them the briefing was \"off the record.\nIn Dallas, however, Criswell, immediate past president of the Southern Baptist Con-\nvention, held a press conference following the briefing, saying he endorsed President Nixon's\nplan to visit Red China.\nCriswell told the Baptist Press that he had asked Kissinger if he could quote him on\nhis answer to a question Criswell had asked concerning U.S. support of Israel, and that\nKissinger had said flatly, \"Yes.\" Criswell added that since Kissinger's other remarks were\ngenerally known, he did not feel what little he said to the press would be damaging.\nAsked if he endorsed President Nixon's trip to Peking, Criswell replied, \"Yes, and I\nfeel doubly that way after the briefing.\n\"It is unthinkable,' Criswell said, \"That we could blind our eyes to the fact that Red\nChina is here. Red China is an astronomical fact. He cited 800 million inhabitants which\nhe said soon would grow to one billion.\nRELIGIOUS NEWS SERVICE\nDOMESTIC SERVICE\n-18-\nFRIDAY, AUGUST 13, 1971\nSOUTHERN BAPTIST LEADER REPORTS\nON WHITE HOUSE CHINA BRIEFING\nBy Religious News Service (8-13-71)\nDALLAS (RNS) A former president of the Southern Baptist Conven-\ntion announced here that he has changed his views of President Nixon's\nplanned trip to China and is \"in. sympathy\" with the administration's\nforeign policy.\nDr. W.A. Criswell, pastor of First Baptist church, here said that\nhe recently had a two-hour White House briefing which included a meet-\ning with Dr. Honry Kissinger and a brief talk with the President.\n\"The real enemy of America now is Russia,\" claimed the Baptist\nclergyman in an interview with the Dallas Times Horald.\nHe also said that the White House briefing informed him that the\nreal issue in the world was \"the war in the Middle East, rather than\nVietnam or Red China.\" The closest the U.S. came to war in recent\nyears was in 1970 when Syria invaded Jordan and Egypt was preparing\nto help Syria with Russia's encouragement, said Dr. Criswell.\nThe Baptist pastor has repeatedly voiced his support of Israel.\nDr. Criswell clains that the situation in the Middle East \"confirms what\nthe Bible says -- that the final confrontation will be there.\"\nThe White House briefing attended by Dr. Criswell was also attended\nby Evangelist Billy Grahan, news commentator Paul Harvey, Holiday Inns\npresident William Walton, and Jarman Shoe Company executive Maxey Jar-\nman, among others. \"I think the group gathered was chosen by Billy\nGrahan, Dr. Criswell stated. Though he is a resident of North Carolina\nMr. Grahan is a member of Dr. Criswell's church.\nDr. Criswell added that he believed the President's trip to China\nwas \"not a spur of the moment decision, but a planned policy toward\nwhich they ve been working several years.\"\ntrying\n\"The administration is / to face the reality of the growing power\nof Russia, \" the minister continued. \"Eighty per cent of the arms in\nTietnam come from Russia. One hundred per cent of the arms in the\nfiddle East are from Russia.\"\nDr. Criswell further stated that \"it is an awesone enemy which\nonly knows the language of brute force.\"\nThe White House visit gave him \"broader insights and a deeper\nunderstanding of American foreign policy,\" the pastor stated. \"The\nCommunists, with increasing success, are trying to isolate America.\"\n\"We have learned with sad experience that we cannot militarily\nprotect the whole world, Dr. Criswell concluded. We have also\nlearned with heavy hearts that welfare programs and gifts of money will\nnot solve the woes of the nations in the world. We have learned that\nthe only way a nation can be helped is through political stability.\"\n-0-\nPAGE -18-\nColson\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nEYES ONLY\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 14, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nH. R. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nCHARLES COLSON\nSUBJECT:\nMonitoring of Democrats\nI don't believe that we are doing an adequate job of monitoring\nthe likely Democratic opponents or perhaps I just don't know\nwhere to go to get the information.\nFor example, I have been trying to get my hands on the transcript\nof Muskie's press conference last week to get the precise wording\nof his busing statement but have thus far not been able to get it.\nI've raised with Nofziger the question of having someone follow\nMuskie at all times with a tape recorder so that we get his off-hand\nremarks as well as his prepared remarks. Lyn says he hasn't\ngot a budget for this. Maybe it shouldn't be done by Lyn anyway.\nPerhaps it should be done at 1701. The only point is it ought to be\ndone.\nAs another example, I have been trying to find out who attended\nthe Muskie \"fat cat\" weekend in Maine last weekend. Apparently\nno one has been monitoring even this kind of information which\nit seems to me is invaluable. One man could very easily check\nthe airports and quickly determine who was coming in and out that\nweekend.\nI don't know who this is assigned to but I think it is becoming an\nincreasingly urgent requirement. Someone should have the\nresponsibility and should see that it is done and done well.\nRepublican\nNational\nCommittee.\nThomas B. Evans, Jr., Co-Chairman\nAugust 30, 1971\nPERSONAL & CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nThe Honorable H. R. Haldeman\nFROM:\nThomas B. Evans, Jr\nThe attached summary copy of the Delaware poll\nwas sponsored and paid for by private citizens and partisan groups\nin Delaware.\nThe interviews were conducted in late June and early\nJuly which, of course, was prior to both the China announcement\nand the President's dramatic economic initiatives. We are now\nable to measure attitude and opinion change during the July-August period\nwith a panel study in which we re-interview the earlier sample. This\ncan be done at very little cost and if you would like us to proceed,\nplease let us know.\nI would like to discuss this with you briefly by telephone\nin the near future.\nTBEjr/mb\nAttachment\nDwight D. Eisenhower Republican Center: 310 First Street Southeast, Washington, D.C. 20003. (202) 484-6500.\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nDELAWARE STATEWIDE STUDY\n(Volume I -- Analysis)\nAugust, 1971\nMARKET OPF ON RESEARCH\nFOREWORD\nPurpose\nThe purpose of this study was to assess voter opinions on a broad\nrange of national, state, county and city issues at a time between\nelections, July 1971. Additionally, the study identified perceptions\nof elected officials at national, state, county and city levels and\ntested the ballot strength of a number of potential 1972 candidates.\nStudy Dr\nn\nPersonal interviews using a structured questionnaire were conducted\nwith a representa ive sample of 601 registered voters in the State\nof Delaware. Interviewing was done in the end of June and early July\n1971 by professional interviewers under the direction of Market\nOpinion Research, Detroit. The sample was a probability-propertionate-\nto-size sample based on occupied dwelling units acco ding to the 1970\nU.S. Census figures for Delaware.\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nSampling error on a sample of this size at the 95% fidence level\nis + 4.1%. This means that when a figure is cited in the sample,\nthe probability is 95 out of 100 that this figure is within + 4.1%\nof the true figure among registered voters in Delaware.\nAs a check on the sample, respondents reported vote for President\nin 1968 was checked against actual figures for Delaware:\nActual\nRespondents'\nVote\nRecall of Vote\n1968\n(Those Who Voted)\n100%\n100%\nNixon\n45.1%\n51.8%\nHumphrey\n41.8\n41.3\nWallace\n13.1\n6.9\nAlthough the figure for Nixon is slightly high and the figure for\nWallace slightly lov, over-time recall tends to move slightly to and\nthe winner.\nComparison by census statistics for Delaware on race in the adult\npopulation showed the sample well within error limits:\nCensus\nSample\n100%\n101\nNegro/black\n12.9%\n11.0%\nWhite and other\n87.1\n87.3\nNot stated\n--\n1.7\n:\nMARKETO: ION RESEARCH\nFor purposes of analysis the sample was divided:\nTotal\n601\n100%\nBy Voting behavior at Past State and National Election\nRepublican\n193\n32.3%\nTicket Splitter\n172\n28.6\nDemocrat\n194\n32.1\nMarginal\n42\n7.0\nBy County\nCity of Wilmington\n108\n18.0\nNew Castle excluding Wilmington\n313\n52.1\nKent\n87\n14.5\nSussex\n93\n15.4\nBy Age\n29 and under\n90\n14.9\n30 39\n138\n2.9\n40 19 9\n230\n38.2\n60 and over\n136\n22.6\nBy Income\n0 - $4,999\n96\n16.0\n$5,000 - $9,999\n197\n32.8\n$10,000 - $14,999\n142\n23.6\n$15,000 and over\n87\n14.4\nBy Education\nLess than high school graduate\n197\n32.8\nHigh school graduate\n227\n37.8\nMore than high school graduate\n165\n27.5\nB Date of Int.\n*\nBefore June 29, 1971\n131\n21.8\nJune 29 an.: after\n4,0\n78.2\n*\nNote: It should be kept in mind that those interviews that were\ndone before and after June 29 do not represent matched\nsamples. The Governor's messa C to the legislature simply\nhamened to occur in the middle of the interviewing. Because\n0: his, the before-and-after interviews are compared to the\ntotal sample in terms of voting, behavior following\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nTotal\nBefore 6/29\nAfter 6/29\n601\nRepubl ican\n32.3\n29.8\n32.8\nTicket splitter\n28.6\n29.8\n28.4\nDemocratic\n32.1\n38.2\n30.6\nMarginal\n7.0\n2.2\n8.3\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nISSUES\nNational\nThe Asian War receives the most mention as the most important\nproblem facing the nation at the present time, just as it did in a\npoll of Delaware voters last September. It is also named by the largest\npercentage as the \"single most important problem.\" The war gets\nparticularly high mention from young voters. The second ranked problem\nis cost of living and the economic structure, as it was last fall.\nCompared to last fall, there is a marked drop in the mention of racial\nintegration, pollution/ecology, and youth unrest as important I ntioned problems.\nMost Important Problems Facing Our Nation\nNamed as Important\nProblem (Multiple\nNamed as Single\nAnswers Allowed)\nMost Important Problem\n% Mention % Mention\n% Mention % Mention\nJuly 1971 Sept 1970\nJuly 1971 Sept 1970\nWar/Asian conflict\n61.6%*\n60.8%\n42.6%\n38.5%\nCost of living/Economic\nstructure\n26.5\n30.2\n10.3\n7.0\nDrugs/Dope/Narcotics\n25.0\n18.2\n9.3\n5.8\nRacial problems/Integration\n16.3\n27.7\n5.2\n11.5\nCrime\n12.0\n17.2\n2.3\n5.0\nUnemployment\n11.5\n-\n3.8\nYouth unrest/Gene tion gap\n8.3\n17.3\n3.0\n6.2\nPollution, .cology/Smog/\nOverpopulation\n8.3\n26.0\n1.8\n9.0\nTaxes\n6.0\n--\n1.3\nAdministration/Leader.hip\n5.5\n--\n2.3\n--\n:\nAll othersless than 5% mention.\n*75.6% mention among voters age 29 and under.\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nVoters were asked to rate nine selected national problems on a 0-10 scel,\non which the more important they considered the problem, the higher a\nrating they were to give it.\nThis measure is one of intensity and it is significant that, when the\nvoters are rating the relative importance of a series of issues to\nthem, both drugs air' inflation move ahead of Vietnam. It is also signifi-\ncant that unemployment emerges only in middle of the list in Delaware\nwhen it is per gived as one of the most important issues nationwide.\nWhen this data is analyzed in terms of voting groups, Republicans rate\ninflation as the most important problem while ticl: : splitters rate\nVietnam as more important than inflation and equally as important as drugs.\nRate how important a problem each one is at this time?\n10- extremely important, 0=extremely unimportant\nVoter Type\nCounty\nTotal\nRep.\nT-S\nDem.\nWil.\nN.C.\nKent\nSussex\nDrugs\n9.0\n8.8\n9.0\n9.5\n9.1\n9.1\n8.9\n9.0\nInflation/Cost\nof living\n9.0\n9.0\n8.8\n9.3\n9.1\n9.0\n9.0\n8.9\nVie am\n8.9\n8.8\n9.0\n9.1\n8.8\n9.0\n8.9\n8.8\nCrime\n8.9\n8.7\n8.8\n9.2\n8.8\n8.9\n8.7\n9.0\nUnemployment\n8.5\n8.1\n8.2\n9.0\n8.4\n8.5\n8.3\n8.4\nAir/11\npollution\n8.0\n7.9\n7.8\n8.3\n7.3\n8.3\n8.1\n7.8\nRacial proble is\n7.9\n7.7\n7.8\n8.4\n8.0\n7.5\n7.5\n8.1\nHealth care\n7.7\n7.1\n7.7\n8.4\n8.1\n7.8\n7.4\n7.2\nCivil/Student\nunrest\n7.5\n7.1\n7.3\n8.3\n7.3\n7.6\n7.6\n7.6\n2 -\nMARKET OPINION RI SEARCH\nOver lalf of all voters perceive the nation as worse off than it was two\nor three years ago, and this attitude is more prevalent among Democrats\nthan among Republicans or ticket splitters. Only 16% think the nation\nis better off while 22% think it is in about the same shape.\nGenerally speaking. do you think the United States as a nation is better\nor worse off the it was :0 or three y S ago?\nVoter Type\nCounty\nTotal\nRep.\nT-S\nDem.\nWil.\nN.C.\nKent\nSussex\nBetter off\n16.0%\n22.8%\n12.2%\n11.9%\n8.3%\n18.8%\n17.2%\n14.0%\nWorse off\n56.6\n52.8\n55.2\n61.3\n64.8\n53.0\n52.9\n62.4\nAbout the same\n22.0\n21.2\n25.0\n20.6\n20.4\n22.4\n25.3\n19.4\nDon't know\n5.5\n3.1\n7.6\n6.2\n6.5\n5.8\n4.6\n4.3\nMain reasons given among the 56.5%\nThe 16% who think the nation is\n1.0 think the nation is worse off\nbetter off said:\nare:\nWar\n29.7%\nWar situation is better\n39.6%\nIn lation/Economy\n17.4\nEconomy improving/Coping\nUnemployment\n13.2\nwith inflation\n13.5\nDrugs in U.S. and Vietnam\n12.1\nCountry is holding its\nNot enough money in\nown\n12.5\ncirculation/Sp.\nYoung people facing\nexpenditures\n10.6\nproblems/Less college\nNo crime control/l\ndemonstration:\n8.3\nenforcement\n10.0\nPeople' attitudes\n10.6\nU.S. im. qe slipped in\nrelation with other\ncountries\n8.2\n- 3 -\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nVietnom\nGiven three plans the U.S. could follow in dealing with the Vietnam\nsituati 1, half of respondents choose: \"Continue to withdraw troops\nbut with no fixed deadline.\" In a second question as to whether some\ntroops should remain until all P.O.W.s are released, there is extre ely\nstrong support for leaving some troops until the P.O.W.s are freed.\nThis is particularly strong in Kent and Sussex Counties (79%) and\namong Republicans (71%).\nOf the 3 different plans the U.S. could follo in dealing with Victnam,\nwhich ( do you prefer?\nVoter Type\nCounty\nCty.\nCity N.C.\nof less\nTotal R.P. TS Dem. Marg. Wilm. Wilm. Kent Sussex\nWithd ew all U.S.\ntroces immediately 21.1% 17.1% 19.8% 24.7% 28 5% 27.8% 17.6% 21.8% 24.7%\nWithd, / all U.S.\ntrou, by\n12/31/11\n21.6 21.2 27.3 18.0 16.7 20.4 22.0 27.6 16 1\nContinue to with-\ndraw troops but\nwith no fixed\ndeadline\n50.7\n56.5\n48.8\n47.9\n45.2\n37.0\n54.6\n47.1\n57.0\nDon't know\n6.5\n5.2\n4.1\n9.3\n9.5\n14.8\n5.8\n3.4\n2.2\n- 4\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nWhich of the allowing two plans in dealing with Vietnam are you most\nin favor 01?\nVoter Type\nCounty\nCty.\nCity N.C.\nof less\nTotal Rep. T-S Dem. Marg. Wilm. Wilm. Kent Sussex\nRetaining some forces\nin South Vietnam\nuntil all P.O.W.s\nare released\n65.9% 71.0% 64.0% 63.4% 61.9% 54.6% 62.0% 79.3% 79.6%\nWithdrawing >11 our\ntroops regardless\nof P.O.W.\nsituation\n16.3 13.5 17.4 17.5 19.0 18.5 17.9 10.3 14.0\nDon't know\n17.8 15.5 18.6 19.1 19.0 26.9 20.1 10.3 6.5\nDel ware Issues\nAccording to the respondents surveyed, the most important problems facing\nDelaware are financial. This is a change fro. September 1970 when they\nnamed ecology and racial problems as the top two issues, and this change\nappears to be only partially as a result of the recent financial problems\nin Dover. Even among those interviewed before the Governor's special\nmessage to the General As embly, finances and unnecussary sp nding were\nthe most freque tly mentioned problems. The frequency of mention of\nfinances did, however, double after June 29, 1971. Prior to then it was\nmentioned by 21.4% as an important problem facing Delaware but after the\n29th 42.1% mentioned it as an important state problem. None of the other\nissues mentioned appear to have been affected by this incident. As an\ni sue, state finances are of much greater importance to Republicans (41%)\nand ticket splitters (45) than Democrats (27%).\n- 5 -\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nPersonal\nFinancial problems including inflation, taxes, and the cost of living\nare the main problems facing Delaware voters and their families. Mention\nof finance-related issues far exceeds any other concerns and greatly\noutstrips personal concern about the war. Naming of financial problems\nis even higher among respondents in high income families than in those\nwith the lowest incomes. Nearly one-fifth of respondents, however, say\ntheir family has no problems.\nWhat are the most important problems you and your family are facing at\nthe present time? (Multiple mentions allowed)\nIncome\nTotal\n0 -\n$5,000-\n$10,000-\n$15,000\nSample\n$4,999\n$10,000\n$14,999\nand over\nInflation/Cost of living\n28.5%\n21.9%\n28.9%\n30.3%\n40.2%\nFinances/Money problems\n20.6\n18.8\n24.4\n22.5\n17.2\nTaxes\n12.8\n6.3\n12.7\n15.5\n11.5\nTOTAL FINANCIAL\n61.9\n47.0\n66.0\n68.3\n68.9\nOther Problems Named:\nHealth\n6.3\n7.3\n6.6\n2.1\n8.0\nUnemployment\n6.3\n11.5\n6.1\n4.2\n6.9\nWar/Vietnam\n5.2\n5.2\n3.6\n5.6\n8.0\nDrugs/Drug abr e\n5.5\n4.2\n3.6\n9.2\n5.7\nEducation/Cut in education\nbudget\n5.0\n1.0\n1.5\n9.9\n9.2\nRaising a family\n4.3\n1.0\n5.6\n2.8\n4.6\nCrime\n4.8\n5.2\n3.0\n7.7\n3.4\nNone/No problems\n18.5\n29.2\n16.8\n14.8\n12.6\nDon't know\n10.8\n8.3\n10.7\n7.7\n12.6\nAll others less than 3% mention.\n:\n- 15 -\nMARKET OPINION PESEARCH\nAsked which of their problems the government should help them solve,\n30.8% of voters say \"none, no problems.\" Those who think the government\nshould help them name primarily financial problems inflation/cost of\nliving (22.3%), finances/money problems (16.3%) and taxes (9.3%). Named\nnext is war/Vietnam with only 4.0%.\nDespite this large concern about money, most respondents said their\nfamily was as well or better off as a year or two ago. This may indicate\nthat even though many people have more money today than they did a year\nor two ago, continuing inflation and unemployment have made them\napprehensive about the future. Expectedly, more of those with incomes\nover $10,000 felt better off while more of those in the lowest income\ngroup felt wrse off. Income groups are probably the main explanation\nof why Democrats and those in the City of Wilmington expressed more feeling\nof being worse off (23.2% and 28.7% respectively) tha did the total\nsample (20.5%).\nOverall, are vou and your family better off. worse off or about in the\nsame situation as you were a year or two years ano?\nIncome\nTotal\n0 -\n$5,000-\n$10,000\n$15,000\nSa ble\nS. 999\n$10,000\n$14,999\nand over\nBetter off\n30.3%\n17.7%\n25.4%\n47.9%\n40.2%\nAbout the same\n46.4\n44.8\n48.2\n38.7\n47.1\nWorse off\n20.5\n35.4\n21.8\n11.3\n12.6\nDon't know\n2.8\n2.1\n4.6\n2.1\n--\n:\n- 16\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nPRESIDENT RICHARD M. NIXON\nBallot Strength\nPresident Nixon was run on a series of secret ballots against Senator\nMuskie, Senator Humphrey, and Senator Kennedy both with and without\nGeorge Wallace on the ballot as a third party candidate and with and\nwithout Vice President Agnew on the ballot. When the Vice President\nwas included on the ballot with the President, Senator Jackson of Washington\nwas run as the Democratic Vice Presidential candidate with each of the\nthree Democratic pro idential candidates.\nWithout Wallace on the ballot and without any Vice Presidential candidate\nthe President runs slightly behind Kennedy (4%), virtually even with\nHumphrey and alread of Muskie (8.8%). When Wallace is added to the\nballot, the President runs even with Kennedy, slightly ahead of Humphrey\n(3%) and well ahead of Mus ie (15%). In Delaware Wallace draws his\nsupport about equally from ticket spliter and Democrats but gets\nvirtually no support from Republicans.\nThe introduction of Vice President As :W as the President 's running mate\nand of Henry Jackson as the Democratic candidates running mate adds\nfrom 5% to 103 net to the President's vote against all of the potential\nDemocratic candid. 13' both with and without Wallace on the ballot.\nThe difference between Agnew being on the ballot and not being on the\nballot is clearly with, Republicans.\n- 17 -\nMARKET OPINION RFSI ARCH\nThe President's committed vote with Republicans increases markedly\nwhen Agnew is added to the ticket while there is a negligible effect\nwith ticket splitters and Democrats.\nPerhaps the most significant finding in the presidential data is that\nthere is an extremely high undecided vote, approaching 50% on several\nof the test ballots. This abnormally large undecided appears to be a\ntrue undecided as a number of the undecided voters were questioned in\ndetail about their choice for President and the vast majority said that\nthey didn't know whomthey would vote for. Furthermore, many of them\nindicated that they were not very excited about any of the potential\ncandidates. There were also indications that there is a low level of\nbelievabil ty that any President can or will improve the situation in\nmost of the major national issue areas.\n- 18 -\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nPresidential Ballots\nTotal\nRep.\nT-S\nDem.\nWilm.\nN.C.\nKent\nSussex\nNixon\n33.07\n65.3%\n30.1%\n5.4%\n29.1%\n33.3%\n34.9%\n34.8%\nMuskie\n24.2\n10.9\n28.8\n33.0\n34.5\n22.2\n25.6\n17.4\nUndecided\n42.8\n23.8\n41.1\n61.6\n36.4\n44.4\n39.5\n47.8\nNixon\n34.0\n63.4\n35.6\n6.3\n30.9\n34.0\n41.9\n30.4\nMuskie\n19.9\n9.9\n20.5\n27.7\n30.9\n16.7\n23.3\n15.2\nWallace\n3.9\n2.0\n5.5\n4.5\n--\n2.5\n9.3\n8.7\nUndecided\n42.2\n24.8\n38.4\n61.6\n38.2\n46.9\n25.6\n45.7\nNixon-Agnew\n38.0\n75.0\n32.3\n8.5\n20.8\n46.4\n40.9\n27.7\nMuskie-Jordan\n25.4\n13.0\n25.3\n40.2\n47.2\n15.2\n34.1\n25.5\nUndecided\n36.6\n12.0\n42.4\n51.2\n32.1\n38.4\n25.0\n46.8\nNixon-Agnew\n36.3\n67.4\n35.4\n8.5\n22.6\n43.7\n34.1\n29.8\nl'uskie-Jackson\n23.7\n13.0\n20.2\n40.2\n45.3\n15.2\n27.3\n23.4\nWallace-LeMay\n6.8\n5.4\n8.1\n6.1\n3.8\n4.6\n9.1\n14.9\nUndecided\n33.2\n14.1\n36.4\n45.1\n28.3\n36.4\n29.5\n31.9\nRichard ilixon\n23.5\n43.6\n27.4\n4.5\n21.8\n22.2\n32.6\n21.7\nHubert Humphrey\n24.5\n11.9\n17.8\n40.2\n34.5\n24.7\n23.3\n13.0\nUndecided\n52.0\n44.6\n54.8\n55.4\n43.6\n53.1\n44.2\n65.2\nNixon\n23.5\n42.6\n27.4\n4.5\n20.0\n23.5\n30.2\n21.7\nHumph: y\n20.9\n10.9\n13.7\n33.9\n36.4\n19.8\n16.3\n10.9\nWallace\n2.3\n--\n4.1\n3.6\n--\n1.2\n7.0\n4.3\nUndecided\n53.3\n40.5\n54.8\n58.0\n43.6\n55.6\n46.5\n63.0\nNixon-Agnew\n31.2\n58.7\n30.3\n6.1\n18.9\n37.7\n250\n29.8\nHumphrey-Jackson\n21.7\n5.4\n24.2\n39.0\n35.8\n20.5\n13.6\n17.0\nUndecided\n47.1\n35.9\n45.5\n54.9\n45.3\n41.7\n61.4\n53.2\nNixon-Agnew\n28.1\n51.1\n30.3\n3.7\n22.6\n32.5\n22.7\n25.5\nHumphrey-Jackson\n19.7\n5.4\n21 2\n35.4\n35.8\n19.2\n15.9\n6.4\nWallace-LeMay\n3.7\n4.3\n4.0\n2.4\n1.9\n2.6\n2.3\n10.6\nUndecided\n48.5\n39.1\n44.4\n58.5\n39.6\n45.7\n59.1\n57.4\nRichard Nixon\n23.5\n44.6.\n26.0\n4.5\n18.2\n24.7\n23.3\n26.1\nEdward Kennedy\n27.5\n11.9\n20.5\n43.8\n45.5\n19.8\n34.9\n26.1\nUndecided\n49.0\n43.6\n53.4\n51.8\n36.4\n55.6\n41.9\n47.8\nNixon\n23.9\n41.6\n31.5\n4.5\n18.2\n25.3\n25.6\n23.9\nKennedy\n22.9\n10.9\n13.7\n37.5\n45.5\n14\n23.3\n21.7\nWallace\n2.3\n--\n4.1\n3.6\n--\n1.9\n7.0\n2.2\nUndecided\n51.0\n47.5\n50.7\n54.5\n36.4\n57.4\n44.2\n52.2\nNixon-Agnew\n30.8\n55.4'\n32.3\n7.3\n22.6\n37.7\n25.0\n23.4\nKennedy-Jackson\n22.0\n8.7\n27.3\n29.3\n47.2\n13.9\n13.6\n27.7\nUndecided\n47.1\n35.9\n40.4\n63.4\n30.2\n48.3\n61.4\n48.9\nNixon-Agnon\n29.2\n51.1\n30.3\n8.5\n24.5\n34.4\n27.3\n19.1\nKennedy-Jackson\n19.3\n7.6\n21.2\n26.8\n43.4\n11.3\n15.9\n21.3\nWallace-LeMay\n4.1\n4.3\n5.1\n2.4\n1.9\n2.6\n2.3\n12.8\nUnd Jed\n47.5\n3.0\n43.4\n62.2\n30.2\n51.7\n54.5\n46.8\n1 I 19\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nPerceptions of President Nixon\nThe percentage of Delaware voters who approve of the way President Nixon\nis handling his job currently runs 50.2%, while 32.3% disapprove and\n11.5% have no opinion. Ticket splitters are close to the sample average,\nwhile Republicans and Democrats are expectedly widely spread. While this\nis a quite favorable rating, it is down slightly from the September 1970\nDelaware poll. At that time the President's approval rating was 62.3%\nand his disapproval 25.0%.\nDo you approve or disaprenove of the way President Nixon is handling his job?\nVoter Type\nCounty\nCty.\nCity\nN.C.\nof\nless\nSample\nRen.\nT-S\nDem.\nWilm.\nWilm.\nKent\nSussex\nApr ove\n56.2%\n77.2%\n55.8%\n36.1%\n38.9%\n61.7%\n56.3%\n58.1%\nDis approve\n32.3\n16.6\n33.1\n47.9\n38.0\n30.4\n33.3\n31.2\nDon't know\n11.5\n6.2\n11.0\n16.0\n23.1\n8.0\n10.3\n10.8\nTh reasons given by the more than half who approve are:\nDoing what he can/Trying to do : good job\n44.4%\nImproving Victnam War\n15.7\nInherited problems/Left with a mes:\n6.5\nLittle cooperation from Congress\n(5\nGood as any me /Been a good President\n6.8\nSincere/Honest\n5.9\nAll others less than 5% mention\n1\n- 20 -\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nThe one- third who disapprove say:\nWar policies/Not acting fast enough\n22.7%\nDoing a poor job\n17.0\nUnemployment/Unomployment caused by foreign trade\n9.8\nHasn't provided dynamic leadership\n7.2\nTalks a lot but doesn't come to the point\n7.2\nInflation/Not facing our economic situation\n6.7\nDishonest/Insincere\n7.2\nNot for the common man\n7.7\nAll others less than 5% mention\nAsked in what area Nixon has done his best job, the highest and only\nsignificant mention is \"Vietnam\" (34.3%). Nothing elsé gets even 5%\nmention. In the 3-4% group are \"increase in social security,\" \"air\npollution \"foreign affairs,\" \"makes people feel secure,\" \"health\ncare/medicare.\"\nAsked in what area Nixon has done his poorest job and the highest mention\nis \"not controlling inflation\" (19.8%). Next comes \"Vietnam\" (16.8%),\n\"unemployment\" (10.0%) and \"racial disorders\" (6.5%).\nSeparate questions were asked about each of a list of issues as to whether\nPresident Nixon's actions on the issue caused the situation to become\nbetter or worse. A majority perceive he has improved the situation by his\nactions on Vietnam, health care, air/water pollution, civil/student unrest.\nMore perceive that he has made the situation better than see it as made\nworse with regard to racial problems. The perception that his actions\n:\n- 21 -\nMARKET OPE TON RESEARCH\nhave made situations worse rather than better is in the area of drugs,\ncrime, unemployment, and inflation/cost of living.\nInterestingly, Republicans, ticket splitters, and Democrats all agree,\nalthough to different degrees, on the areas which the President's actions\nhave improved or worsened the problem.\nWhile income or education do not discriminate in this data, age is an\nimportant variable. In those areas where the President is perceived as\nhaving improved the situation, younger voters tend to approve of his\nactions at a rate greater than the total sample. Conversely, on those\nissues hat the President is perceived as having done a poor job, older\nvoters (60 and over) are much more negative than the total sample. This\nis particularly true of the unemployment, crime, and drugs.\n- - 22\nMARK! OPINION RESEARCH\nDid resident \"ixon\" actions in these at cause the situation to\nbec\nbetter\nvor\n?\nVoter Type\nCounty\nCty.\nCity\nN.C.\nof\nless\nTotal\nRep.\nT-S\nDem.\nMarg.\nWilm\nWilm.\nKent\nSussex\nVietnam\nBetter\n60.1%\n77.2%\n57.0%\n45.4%\n61.9%\n47.2%\n63.6%\n57.5%\n65.6%\nWorse\n28.0\n15.5\n29.7\n39.2\n26.2\n44.4\n20.1\n34.5\n29.0\nDon't know\n12.0\n7.3\n13.4\n15.5\n11.9\n8.3\n16.3\n8.0\n5.4\nHealth Core\nBector\n58.4\n65.3\n62.2\n49.5\n52.4\n52.8\n52.7\n71.3\n72.0\nWorse\n24.6\n17.1\n23.8\n32.5\n26.2\n32.4\n25.9\n18.4\n17.2\nDon't know\n17.0\n17.6\n14.0\n18.0\n21.4\n14.8\n21.4\n10.3\n10.8\nAir/Mater Pollution\nBetter\n58.2\n67.9\n57.6\n50.5\n52.4\n46.3\n59.4\n62.1\n64.5\nWorse\n27.1\n19.7\n28.5\n32.0\n33.3\n38.9\n22.4\n25.3\n31.2\nDon't know\n14.6\n12.4\n14.0\n17.5\n14.3\n14.8\n18.2\n12.6\n4.3\nCivil/Student Unrest\nBetter\n51.2\n57.5\n51.2\n47.4\n40.5\n48.1\n54.6\n49.4\n45.2\nWorse\n34.8\n28.5\n36.6\n38.7\n38.1\n41.7\n28.4\n36.8\n46.2\nDon't know\n14.0\n14.0\n12.2\n13.9\n21.4\n10.2\n16.9\n13.8\n8.6\nRacial Problems\nBetter\n47.9\n57.5\n44.8\n42.8\n40.5\n38.0\n46.6\n57.5\n54.8\nWorse\n38.3\n28.0\n43.0\n42.8\n45.2\n51.9\n34.5\n36.8\n36.6\nDon't kn\n13.8\n14.5\n12.2\n14.4\n14.3\n10.2\n18.8\n5.7\n8.6\nDrugs\nFatter\n34.3\n36.8\n31.4\n33.0\n40.5\n33.3\n38.0\n34.5\n22.6\nWorse\n51.2\n49.2\n53.5\n52.1\n47.6\n58.3\n40.6\n56.3\n74.2\nDon't know\n14.5\n14.0\n15.1\n14.9\n11.9\n8.3\n21.4\n9.2\n3.2\nCrime\nBetter\n32.8\n43.5\n27.9\n24.2\n42.9\n25.9\n32.6\n47.1\n28.0\nWorse\n50.2\n38.3\n52.9\n60.3\n47.6\n62.0\n42.8\n47.1\n64.5\nDon't know\n17.0\n18.1\n19.2\n15.5\n9.5\n12.0\n24.6\n5.7\n7.5\nUnemployment\nBetter\n22.6\n29.0\n22.1\n17.5\n19.0\n14.8\n20.8\n35.6\n25.8\nWorse\n62.2\n52.8\n65.1\n69.6\n64.3\n75.0\n59.4\n58.6\n60.2\nDon't know\n15.1\n18.1\n12.8\n13.9\n16.7\n10.2\n19.8\n5.7\n14.0\nCost of iving\n4\nD. or\n23.8\n9.9\n7.2\n16.7\n13.9\n16.0\n11.5\n9.7\nWorse\n75.2\n62.2\n83.1\n81.4\n73.8\n80.6\n68.7\n85.1\n81.7\nDon't know\n10.8\n14.0\n7.0\n11.3\n0.5\n5.6\n15.3\n3.4\n8.6\n- 23 -\nMARKET OPINION RESEARCH\nFinally, 40.6% of voters think a change of national administration\nwould be good for the country, 32.9% think it would be bad and 26.5%\nare undecided. Not unexpectedly, party past voting behavior identifies\nwho thinks it would be good to change (18.1% of Republicans, 55.7% of\nDemocrats and 48.3% of ticket splitters) and who thinks it would be bad\n(56.0% of Republicans, 18.6% of Democrats and 26.7% of ticket splitters).\nThe number of voters who think that a change of administration would be\ngood for the country is greatest, predictably with young voters (46.7%),\nand decreases as age increases. The number who think a change would\nbe bad remains fairly constant among the various demographic groups.\n&\n- 24 -\nMARKET OPINION RESI ARCH\nVICE PRESIDENT ASNEW\nIn Delaware 7.9% of voters approve of the We, Vice President Agnew\nis handling his job end 0.0% disapprove. He has majority approval\nfrom both Republicans (67.9%) and ticket splitters (53.5%). By areas\nhe has 38.9% approval in th City of Wilmington, 50.2% in New Castle\noutside the city, 54.0% in Kent and 45.2% in Sussex Counties. His\ndisapproval is higher than the overall 28% only with Democrats (38.1%)\nand in the City of Wilmington.\nOver half of those who approve of Agnew do SO because he \"says what\nhe thinks/ eaks his mind\" (55.2%). Next highest mentions are \"does\nhis best\" (12.8%) and \"makes people think/interested in people\" (6.9%).\nfifth of those who disapprove of him do SO because he \"talks too\nmuch/loud mouth\" (19.6%). Other reasons are: \"should use discretion/\nno tact\" (10.1%), \"not doing anything\" (15.5%), \"don\"t like him\" (11.9%)\nand \"atvitude towards the press/fights with press\" (6.5%).\nTwo further questions were asked concerning the Vice President's att\non the press and the believability of the media. Over half of those\nsurveyed think Vice President Agnew's attacks on the press have been\njustilied.\nI 1 25\nMARKET OI INION RESEARCH\nHave Vice President Agnew's attacks on the press been just ified or not?\nTotal\nSample\nRep.\nT-S\nDem.\nJustified\n53.4%\n68.4%\n59.9%\n35.6%\nNot justified\n21.3\n19.2\n21.5\n23.7\nDon't know\n25.3\n12.4\n18.6\n40.7\nAsked their own perception of the accuracy of the information they receive\nin newspapers, on radio and TV, most respondents me it as about half\naccurate and half inaccurate. This was similar among all voting behavior\ngroups and in the various areas of the state.\nHow ao mate is the information you receive in newspapers, on radio\nand TV?\nMostly accurate\n22.3%\nAbout half accurate/Half inaccurate\n60.6\nMostly inaccurate\n8.3\nDon't know\n8.8\nForty-two percent (42%) of Delaware voters (57.0% of Re: blicans, 45.9%\nof ticket splitters, and 26.3% of Democrats) think President Nixon\nshould :p Vice President Agnew as. his running mate for 1972. Twenty-\nsix percent (26%) say he should not, and the remaining 31.9% \"don't know\".\nThere are no major differe ces from the sample as a whole in ar of\nthe demographic breaks on this question.\n4\n- - 26 - -\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDate:\nTo : Phoymath Stacha\nFrom : L. Higby\nok cl dox A\nbelieve he coold\npay been 29,000.\nW latdon feb male?\n:\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nDate: 9/17\nTO: Long\nFROM:\nGORDON STRACHAN\n-freiclers AA is making\n122-24,000.\n-Roe oole Irandles office\n- Kalmbach's protege,\nmanagement.\" =\nKen Talmadge, is\nbeing magrider suggested to\n3\n-magrider has been advised\nthe Hill problem.\nof the theft of secretaries from\nMEMORANDUM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 15, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nLARRY HIGBY\nFROM:\nGORDON STRACHAN\nG\nSUBJECT:\nMagruder's Administrative\nAssistant\nJeb Magruder has been authorized by the Attorney General\nto hire an Administrative Assistant to work directly with\nJeb at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.\nThe prime candidate is Bob Herrema, whose resume is attached.\nHerrema is a close friend of John Clark in Fred Malek's\noffice. I talked with Herrema yesterday, and he is a\npersonable, outgoing, aggressive type. My only reservation\nis one which I relayed to John Clark and Magruder to the\neffect that someone with political connections on the Hill\nmight be inappropriate for a sensitive role in the campaign.\nThe alternative prospect is Curt Herge from the law firm in\nNew York. Magruder is leaning towards Herrema and my\ninclination is Herge. Do you have a suggestion? No\nI thought Robb alle was his AA.\nI can't believe that Waicher would\ngive of his AA or that Magrueler can\nWhat all are going to do to Colson or ther.\npay him the 29,000 that on Weiches A.A make.\nRemicabe the problems we had with\nsurpaing recretaries\nRESUME\nROBERT L. HERREMA\nAddress: 10318 Democracy Lane, Potomac, Maryland 20854\nPhone:\n(301) 299-8395\nPersonal Data\nBorn:\nJuly 18, 1939\nDependents: Married (2 daughters)\nRochester, New York\nMilitary: Classified 3-A\nHeight: 6'1\" Weight: 185 lbs.\nEmployment History\nU. S. Senate\nAdministrative Assistant to Senator Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-Conn.)\nJanuary 1971 to present.\nJob Responsibilities: Serve as principal assistant and alter-\nego to the Senator.\nU. S. House of Representatives\nAdministrative Assistant to Congressman Lowell P. Weicker, Jr. (R-Conn)\nMay 1969 to January 1971.\nJob Responsibilities: Manage Congressional offices in Washington\nand Connecticut; represent the Congressman at various official, civic\nand social functions; coordinate projects of significance to organi-\nzations and individuals in Congressional District; consult with\nCongressman on legislation; maintain liaison with Congressional\nCommittees, state and Federal agencies.\nThe George Washington University, Washington, D. C.\nAssistant Director of Personnel Services, December 1965 to May 1969.\nJob Responsibilities: Recruitment - establish and maintain\nrecruitment resources; develop recruitment programs and materials.\nEmployment - supervise four personnel interviewers; review and improve\nforms, policies and procedures regarding applicant intake and correspon-\ndence, interviewing, reference-checking, selection and placement.\n)\nBenefits - supervise four employees in the administration of employee\nbenefits for 3500 academic and non-academic staff. Personnel Records -\ndevelop forms, systems and procedures for an automated personnel in-\nformation system.\nCollateral Duties: Serve on two advisory committees in formulating\npersonnel policies for the university and hospital; assist in union\ncontract negotiation; advise and assist department heads and supervisors\nin staffing, organizational structure, and other personnel matters;\nassist in developing orientation and training programs for staff\nmembers; assist in developing and maintaining a job classification -\nsalary administration plan for 3000 non-academic personnel in the\nhospital and university.\nRobert L. Herrema\nResume (cont'd)\n2.\nThe George Washington University\nPersonnel Assistant, September 1964 to December 1965.\nJob Responsibilities: Supervise two Benefit Assistants;\nadminister employee benefits for non-academic staff; coordinate\nrelated projects as assigned by the Director.\nSigma Phi Epsilon Fraternity, National Headquarters, Richmond, Virginia\nAssistant Director of Chapter Services, January 1964 to September 1964.\nJob Responsibilities: Recruit and train new staff representatives;\ninitiate reports and communications in the areas of chapter housing\nand finance; assist in the administration of a loan fund for chapter\nhousing; develop and revise manuals for teaching the techniques of\nchapter operation; assist in organizing and setting up leadership\ntraining schools for 350 alumni and undergraduate fraternity members.\nStaff Representative, July 1963 to January 1964.\nJob Responsibilities: Conduct management audits in 32 fraternity\nchapters throughout New England; develop and supervise the implemen-\ntation of programs to improve each chapter's operation; write reports\nand other communications necessary to follow up on chapter improve-\nment programs; visit with deans and other college officials to monitor\nthe chapter's relationship with the college; assist alumni groups in\ncontrolling the financial operation of each chapter.\nThe Kordite Corporation, Macedon, New York\nResearch and Development Technician, July 1, 1959 to August 1960.\nJob Responsibilities: Conduct experiments on clear plastic film\nin a physical testing laboratory; fabricate mechanical devices for use\nin pilot plant plastics extrusion studies; develop and report on\nmethods of increasing production of tubular and lay-flat plastic film;\nemploy drafting skills in designing apparatus used for pilot plant\nstudies.\nReason for Leaving: Re-enter college to obtain Bachelor's Degree.\nEastman Kodak Co., Naval Ordnance Division, Rochester, New York\nDraftsman (co-op Program), Fall Quarter 1957 and Spring Quarter 1958.\n(Awarded secret clearance for involvement with Satellite Program)\nEducation\nM. A. in Government (due upon completion of thesis)\nThe George Washington University\nB. A. in Psychology with minor in Philosophy\nMarshall University, 1963\nA. A. S. in Mechanical Engineering\nRochester Institute of Technology, 1959\nRobert L. Herrema\nResume (cont'd)\n3.\nCollege Related Recognition\nSelected for \"Who's Who in American Colleges and Universities\" and\nOmicron Delta Kappa (National Men's Leadership Fraternity). President\nof college fraternity and president of Inter-fraternity Council.\nAwarded medals for achievement in intercollegiate and amateur\nwrestling tournaments.\nPolitical Activities\nYoung Republican National Leadership Training School\nProgram Chairman 1970\nAssistant Program Chairman 1969\nCOMMITTEE FOR THE RE-ELECTION OF THE PRESIDENT\n1701 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, N.W\nWASHINGTON. D. C. 20006\nSeptember 9, 1971\n(202) 333.0920\nCONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR THE ATTORNEY GENERAL\nAttached is a report by David A. Keene on the YAF convention\nwhich he attended in Houston, along with Tom Huston, at our\nrequest.\nJEB S. MAGRUDER\nAttachment\nCONFIDENTIAL\nis\nOFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT\nWASHINGTON\nSeptember 8, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJEB MAGRUDER\nFROM:\nDAVID A. KEENE\nOak\nSUBJECT:\nYAF CONVENTION\nI am sure you already have a pretty clear idea of\nthe results of last week's YAF convention in Houston.\nWe did not come out of the affair as well as I had hoped\nwe might, but I do think we managed to do about as well\nas we had a right to expect.\nAs I indicated before we left for Houston, there\nis a good deal of hostility toward the President in YAF.\nWe never expected to get a favorable reaction from the\ndelegates, but we did want to show them that we are still\ninterested in their views. We succeeded in this goal and\neven managed to moderate the proceedings to some extent.\nThe resolutions as reported to the convention by\nthe Resolutions Committee were relatively moderate. I\nwould describe them as \"responsibly critical\" and most of\nthem passed on the floor without much uproar. However,\nthe convention did insist on beefing up the so-called\n\"Manhattan Twelve\" statement by deleting the final two\nparagraphs. This action moved beyond the conservative\nleadership and put YAF in a position of greater hostility\ntoward the Administration.\nThe \"mock nominating convention\" held on Saturday\nevening was a disaster for all involved. The delegates\nhad three favorites- Governor Reagan, Senator Buckley and\nthe Vice President- but more than twenty names were placed\nin nomination.\nThe YAF leadership evidently decided at some point\nto go with the Vice President.\nJeD May, 408,\nThis decision was opposed, however, by many delegates\nwho believed that the White House wanted the Vice President\nto win as a means of blunting the impression OF total\nhostility toward the Administration. This belief was\nstrengthened by rumors that Steve Shadegg and possibly\nDave Jones were attending as White House operatives and\nurging delegates to support the Vice President.\nThe delegates resented this as well as Shadegg's\nalleged offer to, in effect, buy off Chairman Ron Docksai.\nThis resentment combined with a particularly inflammatory\nspeech by former YAF National Chairman, Robert Bauman, set\nthe stage for the Saturday night debacle.\nYou may recall that, when I talked with you prior to\nthe mock convention, I said that we were dealing with a\npaper house, but that we didn't have too much to worry about\nif no one set it ablaze. Well, Bauman was the arsonist.\nThe YAF leadership had also decided to place the\nPresident's name in nomination so that they could embarrass\nhim. We attempted to stop this without much success, and\ninstead, the kids supporting him announced that they\nconsidered the Vice President's nomination a show of support\nfor the Administration.\nThe \"mock convention\" was, of course, a frivolous\nexercise without much meaning in itself. However, it did\ngive the delegates an opportunity to demonstrate their\ndistaste for the Administration and its programs at this\npoint in time. The emotionalism of the evening can be\nexplained by the fact that many of the kids participating\nworked in the '68 campaign and now feel betrayed.\nThe significance of their discontent lies in the\nfact that they reflect, admittedly in exaggerated form,\nthe feelings of many other conservatives. In this respect,\nthey pose a problem both for us and for senior conservative\nleaders who cannot afford to get too far away from their\nsupporters. People like Senator Goldwater are already\nbeginning to lose credibility within the conservative\nmovement because of their loyalty to the President, while\nothers are moving steadily to the right of the President\nto avoid this problem.\nI have said in the past that I believe we would be\nfooling ourselves if we adopt the attitude that this\ndiscontent is going to go away. It isn't going to. On\nthe contrary, unless we move to do something about it, we\ncan expect it to get worse.\nThe problem, of course, is that most of their\nobjections are of a substantive nature. This is particularly\ntrue in the areas of defense, wage and price controls, and\nwelfare. YAFers are violently opposed to FAP and wage and\nprice controls. There is no way in which they can be either\nsold on them or convinced to ignore them. And they, like\ntheir senior advisers, are afraid of our apparent strategic\nslippage.\nGiven these problems, however, there are still some\nsteps we might consider:\n1. There are few identifiable \"movement\" conservatives\nin the Administration, and this is a point of\ncontention that comes up whenever conservatives\nmeet.\n2. Many conservatives feel that we are simply not\ninterested in their views. I know that some attempt\nis being made to increase our communications with\nthe right, but I feel this effort should be stepped\nup. A little attention here could go a long way in\n1972.\n9/14\nChapen, cwc, S Bull, J8M\n1) people don't know what strategy is\n-0' Donnell\n2\nonly top spokes to media center\n-there are guidelines\n2) O'Donnell - the men in sched\nDon't know:\na) when comp starts\nup to Convention, non - poe events\ncwc continue \"admin events\"\nnon per events chra conver\n1201 handle per events.\nadd man to cwc for 2 mas\nunder O' Donnell then to 1201\nDon't schedule form and 1701\nCONFIDENTIAL\nSeptember 14, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nH. R. HALDEMAN\nVIA:\nDWIGHT L. CHAPIN\nAN\nLNG\nFROM:\nSTEPHEN BULL\n6-102\nBy\nEP\n3-24-82\nRE:\nScheduling of Senator Goldwater and\nOther Surrogate Candidates\nA memorandum dated September 2nd from Mr. Haldeman to Mr. Chapin\ndirected the establishment of a procedure for working with Senator\nGoldwater's schedule and assigning advance support to him. The imple-\nmentation of such a program immediately introduces a much broader\nsubject with which we will have to deal in the very near future, namely,\nthe total program for surrogate candidates. In fact, since the September\n2nd memorandum, Secretary Connally has been added to the list of those\nwho should be supported by an advanceman. Therefore, the subject of\nthis memorandum is intended to be:\n1.\nGeneral discussion of the manner in which Administration speakers\n(i.e., surrogates) are currently handled.\n2.\nWhat the various recommendations are from staff members as well\nas officers at the Citizens Committee headquarters.\n3.\nA concensus recommendation for the establishment of a surrogate\nprogram.\nBy way of a personal disclaimer, I am setting forth some observations\nthat may be rather naive since I have approached this subject rather\nsuperficially because of the lack of information readily available as well\nas the time requirement for this report, and have attempted to proceed\nwithout stirring up too much confusion by my inquiries. The lack of hard\ninformation available, I believe, is the result of the necessity for secrecy\nat this point. I assume that many of the questions and approaches have been\nthoroughly discussed and probably many of the elements already resolved\nin personal discussions between Mr. Haldeman, the Attorney General and\nthe President. However, the decisions have not been reduced or otherwise\ntranscribed to written form, and those with whom I discussed the subject\nof the surrogate program either were not aware of these decisions or the\ninformation had not filtered down to them.\n- 2 -\nPresent Speakers' Program\nCurrently all turndowns of invitations to the President that have any\nsignificance or potential are referred to Pat O'Donnell in Chuck Colson's\noffice by Dave Parker. Pat O'Donnell subsequently evaluates the\ninvitation and considers an appropriate Administration spokesman to\nfill the speaking engagement. The evaluation is done pretty much solely\nby Pat and, according to him, his criteria include many elements such\nas whether the event is in a key State, type of event, the media area, etc.\nAt this point Al Snyder and Van Shumway become involved, Al arranging\nfor appearances on TV shows in the area where the event is to be held, and\nVan arranging for newspaper interviews with the Administration official.\nThe Administration spokesmen are limited to members of the White House\nstaff (approx. 8), OMB (approx. 3), members of the Cabinet (approx. 12),\nmembers of the Sub-Cabinet (approx. 20), occasionally Senator Dole, and\noccasionally some outsiders, e.g., Pat Moynihan.\nAlthough Pat O'Donnell is the scheduler and titular head of the speakers'\nprogram, Dick Howard is the supervisor and, according to all sources,\nis the true backbone of the operation. Without getting into an evaluation\nof personalities and individual abilities, the job of making effective use\nof Administration spokesmen, even now during this \"non-political\" and\nrelatively inactive time, can and should be done better. When we get into\nthe campaign situation which is rapidly approaching, the amount of activity\nwill be multiplied manyfold.\nCurrently I discern a lack of overall strategy to the manner in which the\nspeakers' program is operated. Specifically, there is no guiding philosophy\nthat seems to dictate who should go where and why except for where the\nPresident is concerned. This conclusion was arrived at quite simply; when\nasked what the guiding philosophy was, no one could give me one.\nPossible Approaches to a Surrogate Program\nIn 1968 John Whitaker, who scheduled Candidate Nixon, also scheduled\nthe surrogates. An individual was assigned the task of actually running\nthe surrogate candidates, and second and third string advancemen were\nused to serve these surrogates. In 1970 Nick Ruwe operated the\nsurrogate program which was less complex than that of 1968 and\ndepended more on Administration spokesmen.\n:\n- 3 -\nIn a discussion of a surrogates program, John Whitaker laid forth\nthe basic philosophy that the principal objective should be to find an\nevent for the appropriate spokesman for an appropriate area, and\nlet that event be the vehicle to get him into the area. Once in the area,\nhowever, the event becomes secondary to a more important operation\nwhich would be to give the surrogate the widest exposure which can\nusually be obtained by getting him on TV talk shows, special interviews\nwith the newspapers, and all of the things that we are supposedly doing\nnow with our current speakers' program.\nIn a memorandum I received from Dwight Chapin on September 13, the\ncomment was made that \"everyone is trying to stake out his claim to\nhandle the scheduling operation of surrogates and Cabinet members over\nthe next few months\". This may be one of the better understatements.\nAdditionally, there seems to be a bit of wrestling over where the\nsurrogates program will be run.\nJohn Dean has expressed to Colson and others that the campaign be kept\nout of the White House and that only the President and Vice President be\ncuc desogree\nscheduled politically from here. He has even suggested the possibility\nthat the First Family be scheduled out of 1701. This plan would go into\neffect after the official kickoff of the campaign, presumably after the\nfirst of the year. Colson recommends that for a period of time, possibly\nthey\nJanuary 1, 1972, we continue operating the speakers' program as we have\nthrough O'Donnell and that setup, but that any Congressional spokesmen\nDo\nsuch as Goldwater and others that we will undoubtedly pick up between\nnow and January, be scheduled and operate from 1701. Colson's feeling\nevents\nis that the White House is put in an awkward, if not untenable, position\nby making specific engagements for members of Congress, particularly\nP,UP,\nduring this non-political year of 1971. As a commentary to this point,\nhowever, Dick Howard notes that the RNC, which normally schedules\nFam,\nCongressmen, is a bit jealous of its prerogative in this area and might\nnot take kindly to it.\nsuns\nany ong\nadmin\n- 4\nOn July 28 Jeb Magruder submitted a memorandum for the Attorney\nGeneral, copy of which was submitted to Mr. Haldeman, setting forth\na preliminary recommendation for \"SPOKESMEN RESOURCES\", which\nis, in effect, the 1972 surrogate program. The recommendations in\nthis memorandum are summarized as follows:\n1.\nCabinet, selected agency heads and White House staff members\nbe scheduled in the Colson/O'Donnell operation for the remainder\nof 1971.\n2.\nThe President and Vice President continue to be handled separately.\n3.\nColson hire a new staff man to train with O'Donnell and then move\nover to 1701 in 1972 and operate Spokesmen Resources from there.\n4.\nRNC handle Congressmen until the end of 1971.\nThere are many other minor elements in that memorandum none of\nwhich seem to be of particular consequence to the development of a\nand Trained\nwitst\nwell-defined coordinated surrogate program.\n3\nRecommendation for a Surrogate Program\nEdward\nThis is where I may be overstepping my bounds and getting myself into\ntrouble, but it appears to me that the overall campaign strategy is still\nobscure to the operatives, i.e., the Magruders, the Howards, the Porters\nand the O'Donnells who have been charged with the responsibility for\nplanning some of the specific tactics for campaign '72. A surrogate program\nshould be one of the major tactics directly related to the overall strategy.\nBy the end of 1971 the President will probably have visited all 50 States and,\nfrom what little I have learned about what will be the President's posture\nduring the campaign, there will be emphasis on major TV appearances,\nmuch less personal campaigning than in 1968, and much of the campaign\nperiod will be spent being the President as opposed to being the candidate.\nThis means that the personal appearances will be through the surrogates\nin the key States.\ncwc - sun different when income us. non-ineme.\n58m - Sun repeace P this time inbeg\nd pol + goo't events.\n- 5 -\nConsiderations for Surrogate Program\n1.\n\"Key States\" is a fluid entity that will probably be readjusted as\nthe campaign develops. For planning purposes in the formulation\nof the surrogate program, those States, and perhaps specific areas\nwithin the somewhat larger States, need to be specified to those who\nwill operate the program. The Magruder memo to the Attorney\nGeneral lists 21 States as \"key States\". I have also heard the\nfigure 14. One of the questions is --where should be the area of\nemphasis.\nincludes primary st's\n2.\nThe aforementioned memorandum provides a listing of potential\nsurrogates, utilizing four categories: \"Cabinet\", \"White House\nStaff\", \"Agency Heads\", \"Others\". There is no category for\nCongressmen or Governors, although I would assume that there\nare still one or two Republican Governors left over who could\n0701 Rocke\ndo us some good (e.g., isn't Rockefeller lobbying for Secretary\nof Defense these days?). The list that is submitted, I presume,\nwill undoubtedly be modified and is probably intended as a first\ndraft. At some point in the near future, however, we need to get\na firm list of Governors and Congressmen who can fill the role of\nsurrogate for the President.\n3.\nScheduling - there appear to be two major types of scheduling\nfor surrogates:\n(a)\nOpportunity Scheduling - an event for which a specific\nman is appropriate for a specific function (e.g.,\nSenator Goldwater to the YAF Convention).\n(b)\nCreative Scheduling - finding an event that acts as a\nvehicle to get the proper spokesman into the right area\nso that he, with the support of the Snyders, Shumways\nand the advance operation, can maximize his exposure\nthrough the regional media as well as our established\ntechniques of promotion and communication.\n:\n- 6 -\n4.\nThat individual or group responsible for scheduling the surrogate\nmust be fully familiar with the overall strategy, the points of\nstrength and weakness in the various areas, and the availability\nof the surrogate so that maximum benefit from the event of the\nsurrogate visit can be realized.\n5.\nRight now the talent and resources are in the White House and\n1701 is incapable of providing the necessary support to operate\na full fledged surrogate program.\nSpecific Recommendations for Surrogate Program\n1971\n1.\nBetween now and January 1, 1972, Chuck Colson operate the\nsurrogate program through its speakers' bureau program\n(O'Donnell and Howard).\nApprove\nDisapprove\nG\n2.\nAssuming that the campaign will require an increase in personnel\nto administer such a program, additional people who will\nultimately serve in a supervisory role during the campaign\nbe hired now (but be paid by 1701 due to the wage-price freeze)\nand work with those individuals administering the speakers'\nprogram. The purpose would be to learn how to run a surrogate\nprogram while beefing up our existing speakers' bureau.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nG\n3.\nSenator Goldwater and other key primary surrogates such as\nselected Governors and others outside of the Administration\nwould be scheduled and coordinated through the speakers' bureau\nfor the remainder of 1971. Those events appropriate for this\nselect group would be determined by the speakers' bureau operation,\nbut would be nominally set up through 1701 in order to maintain\nthe appearance of detachment between the political operation and the\nWhite House. In actuality, however, coordination, supervision and\nimplementation would be effected through the speakers' bureau\noperation. As a concession to the RNC, they could be called upon\nfor their assistance in schedule planning and responses to\ncorrespondence and other relatively harmless activities.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nG\n:\n:\n- 7 -\n4.\nA full effort be made to coordinate with the key personnel at\n1701 all of the activities that will be taking place at the White\nHouse until 1972. This would include providing full information\non the Presidential activities.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n5.\nRon Walker has a sizeable list of advancemen, some of whom\nare untested, others who are not ready to be lead advancemen.\nRon would make these advancemen available to the speakers'\nbureau now for support of not just Senator Goldwater and\nSecretary Connally, but others as well. This would provide\ntraining for the new advancemen and better results on the\nroad for the surrogates.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n6.\nProgress reports and evaluations of appearances would be\nsubmitted by the administrator of the speakers' bureau\n(Chuck Colson) to Mr. Haldeman directly.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n1972\n1.\nEffective around the first of the year we admit that there is a\ncampaign going on, and that those support personnel in the White\nHouse who have been administering speakers' programs be detached,\neleminated from the White House payroll, and transferred over to\n1701 where they will operate the campaign. Those individuals who\nhad been training with O'Donnell and others administering the\nspeakers' program would move over to 1701 for the program\noperation.\nApprove\nDisapprove\n2.\nThat 1701 administer the scheduling and advance support of all\nof the surrogate candidates with the exception of the President,\nthe Vice President, and Mrs. Nixon. The remainder of the family\nwould be scheduled through 1701.\nApprove\nDisapprove\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nhave see reviewed state on\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 16, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nH.R. HALDEMAN\nFROM:\nGORDON STRACHAN\nG\nSUBJECT:\nAndrew Glass/National\nJournal Article on Polling\nOf primary importance in the attached issue of National\nJournal is the Andrew Glass article on polling which I\nsuggest you read.\nAs to possible sources of information about the current\npolling operation and future plans, discussions were held\nwith Magruder, Dent, Evans, Marik, Derge, Benham, DeBolt,\nO'Neill, and Grassmuck.\nDiscussion with Magruder developed the following interesting\nnotes:\n1) Magruder talked with Glass in a \"general, non-\nsubstantive manner\". Glass indicated that he had\ntalked to all six vendors, some of whom (he would\nnot disclose which) were fairly free with the\ninformation;\n2) Magruder knows that both Ed DeBolt and Bill Low\nat the RNC talked with Andrew Glass. Magruder called\nDeBolt after receiving the call from Glass. Magruder\n\"instructed DeBolt to talk with Glass only in very\ngeneral terms\". Magruder called Tom Evans to indicate\nhis distrust of Bill Low;\n3) Magruder does not know whether Glass talked with\nLyn Nofziger;\n4) As my memorandum of August 3 (copy attached at Tab\nA) indicates, Glass talked at some length with Tom\nBenham;\n5) Magruder believes Glass may have received information\nfrom Tully Plesser among the vendors;\nDerge, Marik, and O'Neill did not talk to Andrew Glass.\n-2-\nTom Evans did not talk with Andrew Glass. He asked\nDeBolt and Bill Low if they had. Both told Evans they\nhad not. DeBolt, however, said that Bill Low might\nhave. In any event \" (a) GOP official\" is quoted on page\n1697.\nHarry Dent talked with Glass but told him that no polling\nwas done in the White House. He referred him to Citizens\nwith the quote on page 1695.\nGrassmuck doesn't know Glass and most of the information\nin the article came as a surprise to him.\nOne interesting fact emerges -- there is no mention of\nPeter Flanigan, who as Chairman of the Attorney General's\nresearch task force, has overall responsibility for\ninterviewing the polling vendors and developing a research\nrecommendation for consideration by you and the Attorney\nGeneral. All interview sessions were originally scheduled\nin his office but hastily changed to the Citizens. Flanigan\nattended four of the six meetings. He is the only one\ndirectly involved who is not referred to in the article.\nYou received a letter dated August 10 from Andrew Glass.\nHe complains that I did not return his calls. A suggested\nresponse for your signature is attached at Tab B.\nTo prevent future leaks I have emphasized to all the importance\nof referring reporters inquiries to Ron Ziegler or Herb Klein.\nTheir matter raises the whole quation of the\nPress policy of the Citizene Operation. you\nshould discuss thinwith the A.G. and get\nsome firm ground ruler established NW.\nRight paper pls.\n;\nPolitical Report/Pollsters prowl nation as candidates\nuse opinion surveys to plan 72 campaign\nby Andrew J. Glass\nFrom the White House to small-town\nsecrecy, currently is seeking to define\n\"You're finding more people run-\n8/14/71\n1693\nNATIONAL\nAmerica, the political pollsters are\npolling needs for Mr. Nixon's 1972\nning for political office with less polit-\nJOURNAL\nonce more on the prowl.\ncampaign.\nical experience than ever before. So\n©\nCPR 1971\nA National Journal survey of po-\nIn addition, the President requests\nthey really don't have an intuitive base\nlitical pollsters and their clients reveals\nand receives regular \"weathervane\"\nof how well they'll do. They don't\nthat the business which, like politics\npolls that are commissioned for him\nhave the knowledge of their state that\nitself, is as much an art as a science-\nby friends and admirers, mainly in the\na guy who has been in politics a long\nis deeply rooted in the campaign proc-\nbusiness world. Similar polls were\ntime has. But they know enough that\ness. It revealed also that many can-\ntaken on a regular basis for Presidents\nthey need to know. So the pollsters\ndidates still are reluctant to say pub-\nEisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson.\nare all selling.\"\nlicly how heavily they rely on polls.\nBut the political polling profession\nAt its higher rungs, the polling pro-\nLike people who never walk under\ndoes not subsist alone on surveys\nfession remains a tight-knit group. It\nladders even though they say they are\ntaken by the White House or by the\ndivides, almost equally, into those\nnot superstitious, candidates go on\nPresident's Democratic rivals.\nwho poll only for Republicans, those\nbuying the polls. With the approach\nRobert Teeter, the White House\nwho poll only for Democrats and those\nof the 1972 national elections, spend-\nliaison man for Detroit-based Market\nwho poll for both.\ning for political surveys is likely to\nOpinion Research, a Republican-ori-\nBut, as pollster Michael Rowan\nmatch or exceed 1968 levels.\nented polling firm, said: \"One of the\nsaid, \"we're all one club.\"\nIn his book, Financing the 1968\nbig changes we're seeing is the level\nNixon\nElection (D.C. Heath and Company,\ndown to which polling is used.\n1971), Herbert E. Alexander estimated\n\"It used to be that there were a few\nIn seeking the Presidency in 1968,\nthat spending for public opinion polls\nsophisticated gubernatorial and sena-\nRichard Nixon spent about $500,000\nfor all candidates at all levels in 1968\ntorial campaigns using it. Now, almost\nfor the longest, most costly and most\ncame to $6 million.\nall of them are in it. Many Congress-\ncomplex polling project in campaign\nThe estimate, based on 1,200 polls\nmen use it. And it pops up in state\nhistory. Although there is no real\nwhich cost an average of $5,000, is\nlegislatures and in city races.\"\nbattle for the nomination in sight, the\nconservative; one comprehensive state-\nOliver A. Quayle III, who has taken\nNixon White House has budgeted\nwide poll can cost $15,000.\npolls for most of the Democrats now\n$500,000 for polling research for the\nTop to bottom: The White House re-\nin the Senate, said: \"It's now almost\n1972 campaign.\nceives a steady stream of public opin-\nSOP. If you're interested in what\nOrganization: In the White House it-\nion survey results. Some of them are\npeople think, this is the best way to\nself, the gathering of poll information\ncommissioned, directly or indirectly,\nfind out. People who have never\nis supervised by H. R. Haldeman, the\nby the White House itself; others re-\npolled before are polling now. It's\nPresident's chief of staff, who has a\nsult from \"piggybacking\" - adding\nstandard procedure.\"\nbackground in advertising and market\nquestions to polls already commis-\nThe \"new breed\": A veteran Demo-\nresearch. (For a report on Haldeman,\nsioned by Republican candidates or to\ncratic campaign manager believes the\nsee No. 10, p. 513.)\npolls taken for other purposes.\npollsters' growth is based in part on a\nCampaign planning beyond the\nA campaign task force, working in\nnew breed of politician. As he put it:\nWhite House gates is being handled\nPOLL\nPROCESSOR\nRANDOM\nANALYST\nSAMPLES\nPOLL\nTAKER\nKNOW\nINTERPOLATOR\nNEWS MEDIA\nPOLITICIANS\nJohn huehnergath\n1694\n8/14/71\nNATIONAL\nJOURNAL\nGallup and Harris: The Published National Polls\n© CPR 1971\nThe chart at top right traces\nper cent\nPresident Nixon's shifts in popu-\n70\nlarity, as measured by the Gallup\napprove\nGALLUP\nPoll. On each occasion, some 1,500\npersons, the normal national sam-\nple, responded to the question: \"Do\n60\nyou approve or disapprove of the\nway Nixon is handling his job as\n50\nPresident?\"\nThe bottom chart covers the\nsame time period and traces the\ntrend in trial heats between Mr.\n40\nNixon and Sen. Edmund S. Mus-\nkie, D-Maine, as measured by the\n30\nHarris Survey. (Gov. George C.\ndisapprove\nWallace, D-Ala., was included in\nthe trial heats; his support ranged\n20\nfrom 9 to 13 per cent.)\nDots along the lines show the\ndates of the surveys. Parallel gray\nbands show the maximum extent of\n10\n1969\n1970\n1971\nsample error.\nGeorge H. Gallup and Louis\nHarris respectively head the only\n70\nHARRIS\npolling organizations that regularly\npublish political survey results on a\nnational scale. Both Gallup and\n60\nHarris maintain extensive private\nNixon\npolling operations, which account\nfor the bulk of their revenues. They\n50\ndo not accept political clients.\nThe Gallup Poll, first published\nin 1935, now is syndicated and goes\n40\nMuskie\ntwice a week to some 100 U.S.\nnewspaper clients. The Gallup\nOpinion Index, a 32-page booklet\n30\nthat is published monthly, offers\ndetailed breakdowns of Gallup\npolling data. It has about 1,000\n20\nsubscribers.\nThe Harris Survey, syndicated\nby the Chicago Tribune, goes to\n10\n1969\n1970\n1971\n125 U.S. newspaper clients. The\nHarris column first appeared in\ning with undecided voters and non-\ntion near the close and another di-\n1963 and is mailed twice a week to\nvoters. The variations in their tech-\nrect question at the close. The\nsubscribers. Harris also polls for\nniques, along with sample error,\nGallup Poll asks one secret \"ballot\nTime Inc. He plans to publish a\naccount for the spread between\nbox\" question early in the inter-\nhardback, 500-page Harris Survey\ntheir estimates.\nview.\nYearbook, which will carry data on\nThe Gallup Poll samples all\nThe Gallup Poll is prepared in\nwhich his column is based.\nadults of voting age and then ex-\nPrinceton, N.J., by the American\nThe normal lag between inter-\ncludes likely nonvoters. The Harris\nInstitute of Public Opinion, a firm\nviews and publication in newspa-\nSurvey does not interview people\nheaded by Gallup.\npers for both Harris and Gallup is\nwho say they are not registered and\nThe Harris Survey is prepared in\ntwo to three weeks.\nexcludes them from its sample. A\nNew York by Louis Harris and As-\nIn forecasting Presidential elec-\nfurther exclusion of unlikely voters\nsociates Inc. The Harris firm was\ntions, both Gallup and Harris\nis made later.\nbought in 1970 by Donaldson, Lu-\nstrive to minimize the undecided\nThe Harris interviews normally\nkin and Jennerette Inc., a stock\nvote in their interpretations and to\nlast 90 minutes. Persons are asked\nbrokerage firm which is publicly\nbase their predictions upon esti-\nfor their Presidential preference\nowned. The sale was for 80,000\nmates of voter turnout on election\nthree times in the course of the in-\nshares of voting common stock,\nday. The two pollsters, however,\nterview: a direct question at the\nworth about $720,000 at current\nemploy differing methods in deal-\nstart, a secret \"ballot box\" ques-\nmarket prices.\n:\nby Citizens for the Reelection of the\nThe President and his top staff also\n1968 for Mr. Nixon mounted by\n8/14/71\n1695\nNATIONAL\nPresident, which is, in effect, a White\nhave access to other private polls, con-\nJoseph Bachelder, who has since re-\nJOURNAL\nHouse political task force; by the Re-\nducted for Republican senatorial or\ntired as a political polling consultant.\nC\nCPR 1971\npublican National Committee; and by\ngubernatorial candidates as well as by\nDecision Making Information Inc.,\nAttorney General John N. Mitchell.\npolitical pressure groups friendly to\nbased in Santa Ana and Los Angeles,\nA coordinating committee is shap-\nthe Nixon Administration. These polls\nwhich polled in 1970 for both Gov.\ning the campaign research effort,\nare supplied without charge; the Chil-\nRonald Reagan, R-Calif., and Gov.\nwhich will rely heavily on public opin-\nton surveys are underwritten by the\nNelson A. Rockefeller, R-N.Y.\nion surveys.\nRepublican National Committee.\nMarket Opinion Research of\nThe committee includes Jeb S.\nA pollster who declined to be quot-\nDetroit, which advised George Rom-\nMagruder, who has been detached\ned by name said, \"A lot of the (White\nney early in 1968 to scuttle his cam-\nfrom the office of Herbert G. Klein,\nHouse) work that was done in the past\npaign for the Republican Presidential\ndirector of communications for the\nthree years was done by individual\nnomination. The company has done\nexecutive branch, to manage the \"Cit-\ncandidates who were doing it as an\nsome weathervane polling after Mr.\nizens\" operation; Robert Marrick,\naccommodation.\"\nNixon's television appearances.\nMagruder's associate in the \"Citizens\"\nThe White House intends to repay\nOpinion Research Corp. of Prince-\noffice; Gordon Strachan, a personal\nsome of these favors during the 1972\nton, N.J., which handled the 1960 and\nstaff assistant to Haldeman, and Ed-\ncampaign. A Presidential aide, speak-\n1968 Nixon campaigns, as well as the\nward S. DeBolt, the RNC's deputy\ning for \"background,\" said: \"When\n1964 Presidential campaign of Sen.\nchairman for research and political\nNixon is ready to go into an area, an\nBarry Goldwater, R-Ariz. (ORC's\norganization.\noffer for a 'piggyback' (poll) will be\nbillings from political clients in 1968\nThe Nixon campaign steering com-\nmade. I think in almost every case, it\namounted to $600,000-$450,000 from\nmittee also is utilizing an outside con-\nwill be the Nixon White House that\nthe Nixon campaign.)\nsultant on polling techniques-David\nwill offer it down rather than its being\nDavid Derge, although a regular\nR. Derge, 42, a political scientist and\noffered up (to the President).\"\nWhite House visitor, did not attend\nexecutive vice president of the Uni-\nCampaign firms: The White House\nthe presentation sessions, which were\nversity of Indiana in Bloomington.\nscheduled a series of meetings Aug.\nheld in the offices of the \"Citizens\"\nMagruder is the key polling plan-\n9-11 to review the capabilities of more\ngroup, one block from the White\nner. As Harry S. Dent, special counsel\nthan a half-dozen Republican-oriented\nHouse. Derge is known to be a strong\nto the President for political affairs,\npolling firms.\npartisan of ORC.\nput it: \"In this shop, Jeb is the guy\n\"All of them were approached with\nSplit verdict: A decision on the allo-\nwho's the polling man.\"\nthe idea of contributing to the cam-\ncation of polling resources for the\nMagruder declined to comment for\npaign as a sole or prime contractor,\"\ncampaign is expected to be submitted\npublication on polling or on any other\nsaid a White House political aide.\nto the President for his review and\naspect of White House campaign\n\"But it's not inconceivable that\napproval by the end of August.\nplanning. One official, who asked to\nHaldeman will decide 'I don't want\nWhether or not a prime polling con-\nbe identified only as an Administra-\nany one person to know everything, so\ntractor is chosen, a White House of-\ntion spokesman, said: \"We don't want\nI'm going to parcel it out and these\nficial said that polling arrangements\nto get into even what we're thinking\npeople can just like it.' He's like that.\"\nfor the 1972 campaign may not emerge\nabout doing\nThey (the Democrats)\nAnother White House official noted\nin a clear-cut manner.\nknow something is going on. Let them\nthat \"the Nixon campaign is being or-\nThe official said: \"Knowing the\nfind out by working for it.\"\nganized on a priority basis and there-\nPresident, he never puts all his mar-\nWhite House polls: Mr. Nixon has\nfore the need for national pollsters is\nbles in one basket.\nHe\nwill\nwant\nhad access to a steady stream of pri-\nminimized.\" The emphasis, he said,\nadditional head-to-head and special-\nvate polling information since he took\nwill be on disregarding those states\nissue polling.\noffice. These polls have kept the Pres-\nwhere there is \"no opportunity\" and\n\"He never even tells anybody about\nident abreast of domestic political\nconcentrating on the big electoral\nit. But you always have somebody on\nmoods and furnished him with insights\nstates \"which will either win or lose\nthe side who will do a weathervane\ninto changing trends on such questions\nthe election for us.\"\nsampling after a (Presidential) night\nas the public attitude toward admis-\nEach of the polling concerns which\non television.\nThat's just Nixon.\nsion of the People's Republic of China\nmade presentations to the White\nAll of us get used to that. There's al-\nto the United Nations.\nHouse was screened in advance by\nways an edge.\"\nAn almost continuous polling effort\nHaldeman. The group includes:\nAnother White House official who\nfor the White House has been con-\nCambridge Opinion Studies Inc.,\nwill be involved in the campaign, also\nducted, in secrecy, by Chilton Re-\nheaded by Tully Plesser and based in\nspeaking privately, said that, in all\nsearch Services, of Philadelphia, a di-\nNew York City. Plesser's political\nprobability, some of the more sensi-\nvision of Chilton Co. An aide to the\npolling assignments have ranged from\ntive polling results will go to the Pres-\nPresident said, \"The outside pollster\nSen. W. E. Brock's successful cam-\nident directly, perhaps through Halde-\n(John H. Kofron, Chilton's senior vice\npaign in Tennessee last year to John\nman, without being circulated to the\npresident) consults almost always di-\nV. Lindsay's uphill mayoral campaign\nWhite House political staff.\nrectly with Haldeman, although on a\nin New York in 1969.\n\"There are some things-like how\nnonsensitive matter he may talk with\nChilton Research Services, which\ndoes Agnew affect the ticket-that\nStrachan or Higby.\" (Lawrence M.\nconducts its surveys by telephone from\nmight be asked that even Mitchell\nHigby is Haldeman's administrative\nPhiladelphia. Chilton also handled the\nwon't get,\" the official said. (Mr.\nassistant.)\nmechanics of an intelligence effort in\nNixon's choice of Spiro T. Agnew as\n1696\n8/14/71\nNATIONAL\nA Candidate Looks at His Polls\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nIn an interview with National\nprofessionals in this business that\nJournal, Sen. Hubert H. Humphrey,\nhave a great professional reputation\nD-Minn., reflected upon the role\nat stake.\nthat polls played in his unsuccessful\n1968 Presidential campaign and in\nIn 1970, we used polling very ef-\nhis 1970 Senate campaign:\nfectively. I started early. In fact we\nhad one of our early polls in hand\nIn 1968, we were so damned\nmonths before I even declared. We\nshort of money that we didn't use\ntook it simply to see what the re-\npolls as much as I think we should\nactions might be and what the is-\nhave. Had we used them a little\nsues might be.\nbetter, I think I might have been a\nIn other words, I wanted to\nlittle more effective.\nknow myself: Did I have political\nWhich is another way of saying,\nstrength and where did I have it?\nif you're not just looking at how\nThen, we also had in that first\npopular you are as a candidate, but\n(Oliver A.) Quayle poll a number of\nrather are using the polls to base\nissues that we wanted to get a re-\nyour public attitudes on public is-\nsponse to,\nsues, I think you can become a\nOne of the things that I found\nmore effective candidate. You at\nin the polls, for example, that al-\nleast have the means of being one.\nways intrigued me was the tre-\nmendous support we had among\nThe polls can also show your\nyoung people-running as high as\nareas of weakness. It gives you\n80 per cent support within this\ntime, if you take them early enough,\ngroup. I didn't believe at first I\nto repair those areas if it's at all\ncould have so much support in the\npossible. It also shows your areas\n21-25-year-old group. But it\nof strength that you can be sure of\nbecame obvious afterwards that I\nand other areas that you need to\ndid.\nbuttress and maintain.\nI noticed that when we'd go into\nIt takes time to do polling that's\nneighborhoods where there were\neffective. If we had the time and\nmany young married couples how\nthe money, we would have been\nwell we would do with them. In\nmuch better off, particularly where\nthe elections, the young married\nHubert H. Humphrey\nit comes to issues.\ncouples stuck with us, so the polls\nFor example, I know that in '68\nverified themselves.\ntion of whether he likes you or not.\nwe had some gut reactions on the\nIt builds a bandwagon effect. It\nlaw-and-order issue. But we didn't\nAlso, you would think in a state\ncreates a political atmosphere.\nhave an in-depth understanding of\nlike mine, in Minnesota, that the\nits intensity. Even though I worked\nagricultural and economic issues\nActually, the politics of polls\nat it, I didn't start early enough. I\nmight be paramount.\ncan be most important of all.\nalso think we might have been able\nBut we found that there were\nIf they're favorable to you, or if\nto detect age-group differences and\nother issues that were much more\nthey show you with a\nhow each group reacts.\noverriding than merely the eco-\nif you're not ahead- the trend\nnomic issue. Like the law-and-order\nseems to be coming your way, then\nIt's all a question of what you\nissue, for example. And we acted\nit has a tendency to build its own\nask for. And what you ask for is\non that information.\nmomentum.\noftentimes determined not only by\nIt really is almost better than\nwhat you want but what you can af-\nSo, I'm a great believer in the use\nspot announcements (commercials)\nford.\nof polls as a tool-providing that\non television. It's a kind of political\nIn order to use polls really ef-\nyou're willing to spend the money\nadvertising in its own right.\nfectively, you need to take a series\nto get a first-class job. You must\nof them depth.\nnot deal with amateurs in this busi-\nAs Humphrey noted in connection\nThe man or the firm that does\nness.\nwith his 1968 campaign, an impor-\nthat kind of polling has to be very\nI think John Kennedy used polls\ntant test of a Presidential campaign\nsophisticated in terms of the kind\nvery effectively. When he got a poll\nis the depth and breadth of its re-\nof questions which evoke honest,\nthat was a plus for him, he used it\nsearch effort - which, to a large de-\nobjective answers. You've got to\nto build further support.\ngree, relies on public opinion sur-\nbe careful that you don't set up\nI think this can be done today.\nveys. The Senator as yet has not\nquestions that give you answers\nIf a county chairman sees you're\ncommissioned any new polls to test\nthat you want.\nahead in the polls, he tends to say,\nthe appeal of his candidacy for\nSo you really have to deal with\n\"Well, he can win.\" It isn't a ques-\nPresident in 1972.\nhis Vice Presidential running mate in\n8/14/71\n1697\nNATIONAL\n1968 was influenced by ORC polls\nwhich showed him running better\nEstablishing the Tolerances\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nalone than with any possible \"name\"\nPollsters commonly encounter skeptical members of campaign teams\nin the Republican Party. Mr. Nixon\nwho suggest that by interviewing more people- or perhaps another set of\ndecided to bypass better-known per-\npeople- the pollster would have produced different results.\nsonalities for Agnew, who was then\nGeorge H. Gallup, founder of the Gallup Poll and now semi-retired,\nGovernor of Maryland.)\nhas an answer for these skeptics: \"The next time you go to the doctor for\nUtility: Although White House of-\na test, why not have him test all your blood?\"\nficials seek to dampen publicity on\nGallup says that \"no major poll in the history of this country ever went\ntheir polling efforts, they say privately\nwrong because too few people were reached.\" But, he says, many have\nthat polling information, while in\ngone astray because of the way those persons were selected.\nplentiful supply, does not play a crit-\nSamples: Some political pollsters, including Gallup, interview people in\nical role in White House political de-\nrandomly chosen clusters, using what is known as a probability sample.\ncision making.\n(For his nationwide poll, Gallup conducts about five interviews in each of\n\"Nixon has never had much use for\n320 voting precincts, chosen on a random basis.)\npolls,\" a personal friend of the Pres-\nOthers use a quota sample, a less costly technique in which people are\nsident said. \"He only pays attention\nchosen to be interviewed on the basis of specific characteristics in the\nwhen they happen to agree with his\nsame proportion as they appear in the population or whatever \"universe\"\ngut feelings. And he likes situations\nthe pollster is studying. If 12 per cent of the \"universe\" is Negro, for ex-\nwhere the polls do not put him under\nample, a quota sample would include 12 Negroes in every 100 people\npressure, such as his Agnew decision\ninterviewed.\nof 1968.\"\nGallup and other published pollsters abandoned quota samples after\nA GOP official agreed with this\n1948 when polls taken that way indicated that Thomas E. Dewey would\nassessment and added: \"Most of those\ndefeat Harry S Truman in the Presidential race.\npeople (the White House staff) just\nError: A probability sample permits the pollster to measure sample error\nlook at the head-to-head results-at\nthe maximum extent to which the survey results may differ from a sur-\njust two numbers. It's very sad. Most\nvey of the entire population. Quota samples do not permit statistical\nof them just flip to the last page (of\nmeasurement of error.\nthe polling report) to see, in summary,\nThe tables below indicate the range of error for samples of various\nhow we are doing.\"\nsizes. Statistically, the error will be no larger than the figures in the tables\nDemocrats\n95 per cent of the time. As the figures indicate, the size of the sample must\nbe increased as much as four times to cut the margin of error by half.\nOf Mr. Nixon's potential Demo-\nTable I shows the maximum plus and minus- probability\ncratic opponents in 1972, only the cur-\nsamples of varying sizes and division. The larger the sample, the smaller\nrent front-runner, Sen. Edmund S.\nthe error; the more evenly people divide, the higher the possible error.\nMuskie, of Maine, is now engaged in\nIn comparing two percentage results, another question arises: How\npolling research. Most of the other\nlarge must the difference be for it to reflect a genuine distinction, beyond\nDemocratic Presidential hopefuls have\nthe range of statistical error?\nso far given little or no thought to\nTables II and III show the number of percentage points to be dis-\ncommissioning public opinion surveys\ncounted in comparing differences in polls. Table II is used for percentages\nfor their campaigns.\nnear 20 (or lower) and 80 (or higher); Table III is used for percentages\nMuskie: \"People have been waiting\nnear 50.\naround for our polls before moving,\"\nThus, if 50 per cent of those interviewed in 1969 and 40 per cent in 1971\nsaid Anna Navarro, 24, the Muskie\nresponded in the same way to a question, Table III can be consulted to\ncampaign's full-time polling consult-\ndetermine whether the difference is statistically meaningful.\nant. \"The question is how to project\nwhat people want to see.\"\nTable I\n(size of sample)\n1,500\n1,000\n750\n600\n400\n200\n100\nAn initial round of telephone-\nResults near 10%\n2\n2\n3\n3\n4\n5\n7\ninterview polling for Muskie was com-\nResults near 20%\n2\n3\n4\n4\n5\n7\n9\npleted in late July by Independent\nResults near 30%\n3\n4\n4\n4\n6\n8\n10\nResearch Associates Inc., a Wash-\nResults near 40%\n3\n4\n4\n5\n6\n8\n11\nington-based firm headed by William\nResults near 50%\n3\n4\n4\n5\n6\n8\n11\nR. Hamilton, who has worked mainly\nResults near 60%\n3\n4\n4\n5\n6\n8\n11\nfor Democrats in the South. Before\nResults near 70%\n3\n4\n4\n4\n6\n8\n10\nResults near 80%\n2\n3\n4\n4\n5\n7\n9\njoining the Muskie staff in January,\nResults near 90%\n2\n2\n3\n3\n4\n5\n7\nMiss Navarro worked for Hamilton.\nMedia While it is unusual to have\nTable II: Percentages near 20, 80\nTable III: Percentages near 50\na pollster on a campaign staff, Miss\nsample\n1,500\n750\n600\n400\n200\nsample\n1,500\n750\n600\n400\n200\nNavarro said she felt the arrangement\n1,500\n4\n4\n5\n6'\n8\n1,500\n5\n5\n6\n7\n10\nbenefited the Senator. She saw her\n750\n4\n5\n5\n6\n8\n750\n5\n6\n7\n7\n10\nrole as the \"realist\" the person who\n600\n5\n5\n6\n6\n8\n600\n6\n7\n7\n7\n10\n400\n6\n6\n6\n7\n8\n400\n7\nmust \"knock down theories and pre-\n7\n7\n8\n10\n200\n8\n8\n8\n8\n10\n200\n10\n10\n10\n10\n12\nsent unpalatable news.\"\nIn that capacity, Miss Navarro has\nSOURCE: Paul K. Perry, president of The Gallup Organization\n:\n1698\n8/14/71\nNATIONAL\nJOURNAL\nThe Ethical Dilemma: Politicians vs. Pollsters\n© CPR 1971\nIn the spring 1963 issue of Public\ndemic members, issued a standard\nments as to 'what the polls are\nOpinion Quarterly, Louis Harris\n\"which news media can utilize\nshowing' while encouraging \"the\nwrote: \"The pollster who is knowl-\nwhen reporting poll results.\" Each\nreporting of whose poll using which\nedgeable about politics will inevita-\nof these news reports, AAPOR\nmethods and (obtaining) what re-\nbly be invited to sit in on strategy\nsaid, should include:\nsults.\"\nmeetings.\n(He) will more and\nthe identity of the survey's spon-\nNCPP: In April 1968, George H.\nmore be in a position of recom-\nsors;\nGallup invited some 25 polisters\nmending when and how many polls\na description of the sample, in-\nto attend an organizational meet-\nshould be conducted for his client,\ncluding its size;\ning in Santa Barbara, Calif., on the\nrather than simply waiting for the\nan indication of the allowance\neve of the annual AAPOR confer-\npolitical powers-that-be to call\nthat should be made for sample\nence. The session led to formation\nhim and set the timetable.\"\nerror;\nof the National Council on Public\nHarris was writing from experi-\na report on which results, if any,\nPolls, which at present has 16 mem-\nence. In October 1959, he was one\nare based on only parts of the total\nber organizations.\nof nine men who met with John F.\nsample (For example, some poll re-\nNCPP dues are $100 a year for\nKennedy to plan Kennedy's 1960\nsults may represent interviews only\nmembership. The group's current\nPresidential campaign. (Harris\nwith those persons who are likely to\npresident is Robert T. Bower.\nwent on to take polls for the Dem-\nvote.);\ndirector of the Bureau of Social\nocratic National Committee until\na statement of technique-\nScience Research, Washington,\nhe started a newspaper column in\nwhether the interviewing was done\nD.C. Its trustees are three poll-\n1963.)\nin person, by telephone, by mail or\nsters-Gallup, Harris and Archi-\nYet, a deep involvement with a\non street corners:\nbald M. Crossley and Richard M.\ncandidate's fortunes raises an eth-\na statement on the timing of the\nScammon, director of the Election\nical dilemma for some pollsters,\ninterviews, putting them in con-\nResearch Center of the Govern-\nespecially those who consider them-\ntext with relevant events.\nmental Affairs Institute.\nselves social scientists, seeking to\nThe AAPOR code applies both\n\"As of now,\" Bower said, \"there\ndiscover what motivates people,\nto polls which are prepared for\nis no evidence that a 'bandwagon\nrather than campaign consultants,\npublication and to polls taken for a\neffect,' induced by polls, influences\nseeking to get their candidate elect-\nprivate client whose results sub-\nthe result of elections.\"\ned.\nsequently are publicized.\nThe group will issue a quarterly\nOne pollster, Mervin Field, noted\nAAPOR members elect a stand-\nnewsletter, starting this fall, aimed\nin a 1967 speech before his col-\nards committee, which is charged\nat journalists and other users of\nleagues that \"there is an implicit\nwith investigating complaints of\npolls. As yet another way of pro-\npressure to use the (polling) re-\nmisuse of polls. It is currently\nmoting more sophisticated evalua-\nsearch for other than purely objec-\nstudying allegations of irregulari-\ntions, NCPP plans to sponsor sem-\ntive fact gathering. It is used to con-\nties in published polls taken during\ninars for Senate aides, political\nvince financial backers, to encour-\nthe Democratic mayoral primary in\nmanagers and newsmen, at which\nage party workers, to bolster the\nPhiladelphia earlier this year.\npolling techniques will be analyzed.\nconfidence of the candidate, to\nNo individual ever has been cited\nLegislation: There have been a few\nfreeze out potential opponents and\nby the standards committee for mis-\nattempts to enact laws to regulate\nto support existing biases.\"\nconduct, although the panel occa-\npolling, but none has succeeded.\nIn this climate, Field said, a ma-\nsionally has met privately with poll-\nRep. Lucien N. Nedzi, D-Mich.,\njor problem can arise over \"the se-\nsters whose conduct was under ques-\nis sponsoring a Truth-in-Polling\nlective use of certain findings to\ntion. AAPOR's governing body, an\nAct (HR 5003), which has been\ncreate a misleading impression.\"\nexecutive council, is empowered to\nreferred to the House Administra-\nThus, \"there are leaks to newsmen\nwarn by a citation or to expel mem-\ntion Committee.\nfor 'background,' and leaks to the\nbers, but it has never done so, Sid-\nThe provisions of the Nedzi bill\nopposition to lull them or to steer\nney Hollander Jr., a member of the\nparallel those of the AAPOR and\nthem in a direction that will help\nAAPOR council and former chair-\nNCPP codes. (In one respect, the\n(the client).\"\nman of its standards committee,\nbill goes further by requiring public\nAAPOR: In an effort to minimize\nsaid: \"The mood of the organiza-\nfiling of the percentage of inter-\nunethical conduct, the American\ntion is changing and they're in a\nviews in the total sample that were\nAssociation for Public Opinion Re-\nposition to be much tougher.\"\ncompleted and the percentage of\nsearch, founded in 1947, has set\nIrving Crispi, executive vice pres-\npersons in the sample who refused\nstandards for reporting poll results.\nident of The Gallup Organization\nto be interviewed.)\nAn AAPOR code of ethics,\nand also a former chairman of the\nIn March 1963, a bill aimed at\nadopted in 1960, calls upon mem-\nAAPOR standards committee,\nrigorous control of the publication\nbers to monitor release of the re-\nwrote in Polls, Television and the\nof any preelection poll passed both\nsults and to correct promptly any\nNew Politics (Chandler Publishing,\nhouses of the Texas legislature. It\nmisinterpretation of their findings.\n1970) that the 1968 code should\nwas vetoed by Democratic Gov.\nIn 1968, AAPOR, which in-\ndampen \"the inclination of many\n(1963-69) John B. Connally, who\ncludes both commercial and aca-\njournalists to make blanket state-\nis now Treasury Secretary.\n;\n8/14/71\n1699\nbeen working closely with Robert D.\n\"Since when did a 24-year-old kid\n\"My own horseback judgment is\nNATIONAL\nSquier, 36, head of Communications\nknow something?\" said a veteran poll-\nthat our supporters ought to be able\nJOURNAL\nCo. of Washington, D.C., and Mus-\nster who works mainly for Democrats,\nto tell us what's on the minds of\n©\nCPR 1971\nkie's media consultant. (For a report\nreferring to Miss Navarro. \"I couldn't\npeople. Also, people are much more\non Squier and the role of political\nhandle a Presidential campaign when\nnationally oriented; you don't have\nmedia consultants, see Vol. 2, No. 40,\nI was 24. I think it's silly.\"\nthe kind of Balkanization on issues\np. 2135.)\nAnother pollster remarked private-\nthat you used to have.\"\n\"Squier is involved in the whole\nly: \"Basing a major campaign on this\nHart nevertheless said that the Mc-\nprocess,\" Miss Navarro said. \"We\ntype of information in a primary fight\nGovern forces probably would poll in\nwork as a team and talk about what\nis a terribly risky thing to do, because\nWisconsin and Oregon \"to find out\nhis data needs are. Polling is moving\nif Muskie falls on his face in Florida,\nwhat issues predominate\" there. Hart\nmore toward a media orientation be-\nhe's not going to get up again. If they\nsaid, \"I think that would be worth the\ncause people are getting their infor-\nare going to have a research program\noutlay. But that's January or Febru-\nmation through the tube.\"\nlike that, how are they going to run\nary.\"\nMeanwhile, she said, \"The Senator\nthe country?\"\nRobert J. Keefe, administra-\nis always badgering us for informa-\ntion.\" Muskie plans to receive in-depth\nsurveys from five or six primary states\nby January 1972. In addition, Muskie\nrequires polling research on such po-\nlitical questions as how closely should\nhe affiliate himself with Chicago May-\nor Richard J. Daley, a controversial\nfigure but a potential source of dele-\ngate support in Illinois.\nTelephone-The Hamilton firm\nuses a \"tight screen,\" seeking to reach\nonly persons who intend to vote in\nselected 1972 Democratic primaries.\nIn upholding their telephone-\nbased techniques, Hamilton and Miss\nNavarro explain how they attempt to\nTully Plesser\nRobert Teeter\nAnna Navarro\nkeep the sample unbiased and to es-\nMiss Navarro said: \"It's too new,\ntive assistant and a top campaign\ntablish a good rapport during the half-\nand conventional wisdom says it's no\nplanner for Sen. Birch Bayh, of\nhour interviews. The technique also\ngood. Yet I have a gut feeling for what\nIndiana, said the Senator strongly be-\ncosts about 60 per cent less than field\nI'm after; you have to know how to\nlieves in taking polls, but, in light of\ninterviews of comparable size-a\nplay with it.\"\nhis \"low-recognition profile, there's\nmajor consideration in the money-\nAfter the round of open-ended tele-\nnot much point in taking them now.\"\nshort Muskie campaign.\nphone questioning, Miss Navarro said\nKeefe said he had been \"picking the\nFor the Muskie polls, numbers are\nshe is more convinced than ever that\nbrains\" of two pollsters, John F.\ngleaned from telephone directories in\nthe system works well and will provide\nKraft and Quayle, \"both of whom are\nthe areas to be surveyed and several\nthe kind of data the Senator needs.\ntrying to get our business.\"\ndigits are changed before the call is\nThe non-pollers: Other Democrats\n\"When we go into (the Florida) pri-\nmade. This ensures that unlisted num-\nwho are either in or at the edge of the\nmary situation, we will poll three or\nbers will be represented in the sample.\nbattle for the party's Presidential\nfour months out,\" Keefe said.\n(In Los Angeles, 35 per cent of all\nnomination have not yet commission-\nKennedy-\"We have no reason to\nresidential telephones are unlisted; in\ned any private polling. The Demo-\npoll,\" said Richard C. Drayne, press\nNew York, 20 per cent.)\ncratic National Committee, still in\nsecretary to Sen. Edward M. Kennedy,\nThe Hamilton interviewers call back\ndebt from the 1968 campaign, has no\nof Massachusetts.\nthree times if no one answers; they do\nplans to poll, but David A. Cooper,\n\"My boss reads polls rather avidly.\nnot always interview the person who\nthe DNC's director of research, said\nHe's pretty good at interpreting them.\nanswers the phone. They also employ\nhe is prepared to offer technical poll-\nBut we don't pull our own. There are\na toll-free \"verification number,'\ning advice to any Democrat seeking\nother people who pull them for you,\nwhich most people ask for but which\noffice in 1972. (None of the Presiden-\nor maybe send you results, but we've\nonly a minority actually call. This\ntial hopefuls has contacted him.)\nnot commissioned any. There's no\nkeeps their rejection rate to 5 per cent.\nMcGovern \"We've seen some pri-\npoint in paying $40,000 for a poll just\nCriticism In general, pollsters for\nvate polls that other people have\nto see whether you were right on an\nDemocratic candidates have shunned\ndone,\" said Gary W. Hart, campaign\nissue.\"\ntelephone polling, and the Muskie\ndirector for Sen. George S. McGovern,\nHumphrey- the 1968 Presidential\ntechniques have elicited criticism from\nof South Dakota. \"The reason we're\ncampaign, Hubert H. Humphrey, the\nestablished pollsters. They wonder, in\nnot doing it is that, first of all, it's\nDemocratic nominee, spent $262,000\nprivate, whether Hamilton, who has\ntoo early and, second, it costs too\non polls taken by Quayle and five\nbeen polling since 1963, can \"go the\nmuch money and, thirdly, they won't\nsmaller firms.\ndistance\" in a Muskie Presidential\ntell us anything we don't already\nNow that he is in the Senate, ac-\ncampaign.\nknow\ncording to Jack McDonald, his press\n1700\n8/14/71\nNATIONAL\nJOURNAL\nDirectory of Major Political Public\n© CPR 1971\nA 1972 campaign manual prepared by Lawrence F.\nket research and undertake political polls only in elec-\nO'Brien, chairman of the Democratic National Com-\ntion years.\nmittee, states: \"There is no campaign expense which\nOn the other hand, Nimmo says, there are firms that\nshould be approached with more care and investigation\ntake a greater interest in their political than their com-\nthan the selection of a pollster.\nmercial clients. \"These firms provide the client with a\n\"Each pollster develops and refines his own particu-\nwritten proposal, prepared in consultation with sam-\nlar methodology. Each will take a different view of the\npling statisticians in complicated cases, which outlines\ncandidate's needs and design a survey approach to\nwhat the pollster intends to do, how, and at what cost.\"\nmeet those needs.\" O'Brien advises candidates who plan\nListed below are the names, addresses and telephone\nto take polls to solicit proposals from at least three pro-\nnumbers of 74 U.S. firms engaged in political public\nfessional organizations.\nopinion research on a regional or national basis. (The\nAnother campaign handbook, The Political Persuad-\nlist excludes part-time consultants and firms primarily\ners, by Dan Nimmo (Prentice Hall Inc., 1970), notes\nengaged in campaign management.) The name and\nthat many polling firms are primarily engaged in mar-\ntitle of each firm's principal officer are included.\nAmerican Institute of Public Opin-\nington, D.C. 20036; (202) 223-\nJenkintown, Pa. 19046; (215)\nion; Dr. George H. Gallup (chair-\n4300. T#\n886-1000.\nman); 53 Bank St., Princeton,\nCallahan Research Associates Inc.;\nCrossley Surveys Inc.; Franklin B.\nN.J. 08540; (609) 924-9600. *#\nWilliam J. Callahan (president);\nLeonard (president): 909 Third\nAnalytical Research Institute Inc.;\n31 East 28th St., New York,\nAve., New York, N.Y. 10022;\nIrving Gilman (president): 104\nN.Y. 10016; (212) 755-5972.\n(212) 752-4100.\nS. Division St., Peekskill, N.Y.\nCambridge Opinion Studies Inc.;\nDecision Making Information Inc.;\n10566; (914) 737-8855.\nTully Plesser (president); 625\nVincent P. Barabba (chairman);\nHarriet Andrews Research Serv-\nMadison Ave., New York, N.Y.\nRichard B. Wirthlin (president):\nices Inc.; Harriet Andrews (di-\n10022; (212) 759-2220.\n2700 N. Main St., Santa Ana,\nrector): 4007 Falls Road, Balti-\nCantril Associates; Albert H. Can-\nCalif. 92701; (714) 558-1321.\nmore, Md. 21211; (301) 889-3805.\ntril (president); 1061 31st St.\nFarrell Research and Communica-\nArizona Institute for Research;\nNW, Washington, D.C. 20007:\ntions Inc.; Fran Farrell Kraft\nMarian Lupu (field director);\n(202) 337-1600.\n(president); 30 6th St. SE, Wash-\n100 East Alameda, Tucson, Ariz.\nDouglas H. Carlisle; 1100 Gregg\nington, D.C. 20003; (202) 547-\n85701; (602) 624-3880.\nSt., Columbia, S.C. 29201; (803)\n7081.\nAudits and Surveys Co. Inc.; Sol-\n253-0406.\nField Research Corp.; Mervin D.\nomon Dutka (president); One\nCenter for Political Studies; Prof.\nField (research director); 145\nPark Ave., New York, N.Y.\nWarren E. Miller (director);\nMontgomery St., San Francisco,\n10016; (212) 689-9400.\nInstitute for Social Research,\nCalif. 94104; (415) 392-5766.\nBardsley and Haslacher Inc.; Rob-\nUniversity of Michigan, Ann\nFirst Research Co.; David Early\nert L. Haslacher (president);\nArbor, Mich. 48106; (313) 764-\n(president) 1451 N. Bayshore\n422 Waverley St., Palo Alto,\n2570. T#\nDr., Miami, Fla. 33132; (305)\nCalif. 94301; (415) 326-0696.\nCentral Surveys Inc.; William M.\n371-3681.\nBarratt Market Research; Ruth C.\nLongman (president); P.O. Box\nJohn H. Friend Inc.; John H.\nBarratt (owner); 5415 N. Col-\n100, Shenandoah, Iowa 51601;\nFriend (president); 261 N. Joa-\nlege Ave., Indianapolis, Ind.\n(712) 246-1630.\nchim St., Mobile, Ala. 36603;\n46220; (317) 251-1119.\nChilton Research Services (Chil-\n(205) 433-3786.\nBecker Research Corp.; John F.\nton Co.); John H. Kofron (direc-\nLouis Harris and Associates Inc.;\nBecker (president); 675 Massa-\ntor); 56th and Chestnut Sts.,\nLouis Harris (president); One\nchusetts Ave., Cambridge, Mass.\nPhiladelphia, Pa. 19139; (215)\nRockefeller Plaza, New York,\n02139; (617) 868-0010.\n*\n748-2000.\nN.Y. 10020; (212) 245-7414.\n*\nBelden Associates; Joe Belden\nCivic Service Inc.; Roy Pfautch\nMartin Hauan; 1100 Hotel Okla-\n(president); Southland Center,\n(president); 408 Olive St., St.\nhoma, Oklahoma City, Okla.\nDallas 75201; (214) 748-7188.\nLouis, Mo. 63101; (314) 436-\n73101; (405) 236-0931.\nBenson and Benson Inc.; Lawrence\n4185.\nSidney Hollander Associates; Sid-\nE. Benson (chairman); Benson\nCorey, Canapary and Galanis; Dor-\nney Hollander Jr. (president);\nBuilding, Princeton, N.J. 08540;\nothy D. Corey (president); 2 Pine\n2500 Maryland Ave., Baltimore,\n(609) 924-3540.\nSt., San Francisco, Calif. 94111;\nMd. 21218; (301) 467-8565.\nE. John Bucci Co.; E. John Bucci\n(415) 397-1200.\nC. E. Hooper Inc.; (a subsidiary of\n(president); P.O. Box 266,\nDorothy D. Corey Research; Dor-\nDaniel Starch and Staff Inc.);\nSwarthmore, Pa. 19081; (215)\nothy D. Corey (president); 1705\nOscar B. Lubow (president);\n544-5775.\nVictoria Ave., Los Angeles, Calif.\nMamaroneck, N.Y. 10543; (914)\nBureau of Social Science Research\n90019; (213) 731-2414.\n698-0800.\nInc.; Robert T. Bower (direc-\nThe CRC Group Inc.; Harry W.\nIndependent Research Associates\ntor); 1200 17th St. NW, Wash-\nRivkin (president); Beaver Hill,\nInc.; William R. Hamilton (pres-\n:\n8/14/71\n1701\nOpinion Firms in the United States\nNATIONAL\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nident); 4000 Albemarle St. NW,\nTower Building, Little Rock,\nResponse Analysis Corp.; Dr.\nWashington, D.C. 20016; (202)\nArk. 72201; (501) 374-0605.\nHerbert I. Abelson (president);\n362-5056.\nJoseph Napolitan Associates Inc.;\n1101 State Rd., Princeton, N.J.\nInstitute for Motivational Research;\nJoseph Napolitan (president):\n08540; (609) 921-3333.\nErnest Dichter (president); Al-\n1028 Connecticut Ave. NW,\nResponsive Research Corp.; Peter\nbany Post Road, Croton-on-\nWashington, D.C. 20036; (202)\nK. Simonds (president); 7 Water\nHudson, N.Y. 10520; (914)\n296-3780.\nSt., Boston, Mass. 02109; (617)\n271-4721.\nNational Analysts Inc.; Peter R.\n742-3582.\nInstitute of American Research;\nVroon (chairman); 1015 Chest-\nThe Roper Organization Inc.;\nStephen J. Kovacik Jr. (presi-\nnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. 19107;\nBurns W. Roper (president); One\ndent); 88 East Broad St. Colum-\n(215) 627-8109.\nPark Ave., New York, N.Y.\nbus, Ohio 43215; (614) 221-2062.\nNational Opinion Research Cen-\n10016; (212) 679-3523.\nInternational Research Associates\nter; Norman M. Bradburn (di-\nW. R. Simmons Associates; W. R.\nInc.; Helen S. Dinerman (chair-\nrector); University of Chicago,\nSimmons (president); 235 East\nman); 1270 Avenue of the Amer-\n6030 South Ellis Ave., Chicago,\n42nd St., New York, N.Y.\nicas, New York, N.Y. 10020;\nIII. 60637; (312) 684-5600. T#\n10017; (212) 986-7700.\n(212) 581-2010.\nOpinion Research Corp.; Joseph C.\nSindlinger and Co. Inc.; Albert E.\nGordon L. Joseph and Associates;\nBevis (chairman); North Har-\nSindlinger (president); Harvard\nGordon L. Joseph (president);\nrison St., Princeton, N.J. 08540;\nand Yale Aves., Swarthmore,\n1510 Veterans Memorial Boule-\n(609) 924-5900.\nPa. 19081; (215) 544-8260.\nvard, Metairie, La. 70005; (504)\nOpinion Research Laboratory; Guy\nStrategy Research; Richard W.\n835-0635.\nE. Rainboth (president); 2108\nTobin Jr. (president); 4141 N.\nJohn F. Kraft Inc.; John F. Kraft\nNorth Pacific, Seattle, Wash.\nMiami Ave., Miami, Fla. 33127;\n(president); 30 6th St. SE, Wash-\n98013; (206) 632-9274.\n(305) 751-2216.\nington, D.C. 20003; (202) 547-\nOpinion Research of California;\nSuncoast Opinion Surveys; Rich-\n7080. *\nDon M. Muchmore (chairman);\nard H. Funsch (president); P.O.\nW. H. Long Marketing Inc.; W. H.\n1232 Belmont Ave., Long Beach,\nBox 1121, St. Petersburg, Fla.\nLong (president): 122 Keeling\nCalif. 90804; (213) 434-5715.\n33731; (813) 894-4560.\nRoad East, Greensboro, N.C.\nPolitical Surveys and Analysis Inc.;\nSurvey and Research Services Inc.;\n27410; (919) 292-4146.\nCharles W. Roll Jr. (president):\nDorinda T. Duggan (president);\nLouis, Bowles and Grace Inc.: Alex\n53 Bank St., Princeton, N.J.\n2400 Massachusetts Ave., Cam-\nLouis (chairman); 1433 Motor\n08540; (609) 924-5670.\nbridge, Mass. 02140; (617) 864-\nSt., Dallas, Tex. 75207; (214)\nPublic Affairs Analysts Inc.; Jo-\n7794.\n637-4520.\nseph Napolitan (president); Mi-\nSurvey Research Sciences Inc.;\nSamuel Lubell; 3200 New Mexico\nchael Rowan (executive vice\nRichard R. Stone (president);\nAve. NW, Washington, D.C.\npresident); 1028 Connecticut\n11411 North Central Express-\n20016; (202) 362-3230. #\nAve. NW, Washington, D.C.\nway, Dallas, Tex. 75231; (214)\nMarket Facts Inc.; David K. Har-\n20036; (202) 296-6024.\n691-0578.\ndin (president): 100 S. Wacker\nThe Public Pulse Worldwide Inc. (a\nSurveys and Research Corp.; Li-\nDrive, Chicago, III. 60606; (312)\nsubsidiary of Daniel Starch and\nbert Ehrman (executive vice\n332-2686.\nStaff Inc.); Oscar B. Lubow\npresident): 1828 L St. NW,\nMarket Opinion Research; Fred-\n(president); Mamaroneck, N.Y.\nWashington, D.C. 20036; (202)\nerick P. Currier (president); 327\n10543; (914) 698-0800.\n296-1935.\nJohn R, Detroit, Mich. 48226;\nPublicom Inc.; Gerald D. Hursh\nWallaces Farmer; Richard J.\n(313) 963-2414.\n(president); 1300 Connecticut\nPommrehn (research director);\nMarket Research Field Interview-\nAve. NW, Washington, D.C.\n1912 Grand Ave., Des Moines,\ning Service; Marian R. Ange-\n20005; (202) 293-1644.\nIowa 50305; (515) 243-6181. #\nletti (director); 3015 East Thom-\nOliver A. Quayle III and Co.\nJoe B. Williams Research; Joe B.\nas Road, Phoenix, Ariz. 85016;\nInc.; (a wholly owned subsidiary\nWilliams (research consultant);\n(602) 956-2500.\nof the Minneapolis Star and\nElmwood, Neb. 68349; (402)\nMarketing Evaluations Inc.; Jack\nTribune Co.); Oliver A. Quayle\n994-5395.\nE. Landis (president); Cy Chai-\nIII (president); 141 Parkway\nDaniel Yankelovich Inc.; Daniel\nkin (senior vice president); 14\nRd., Bronxville. N.Y. 10708;\nYankelovich (president): 575\nVanderventer Ave., Port Wash-\n(212) 295-0779. *\nMadison Ave., New York, N.Y.\nington, N.Y. 11050; (516) 767-\nResearch Services Inc.; John W.\n10022; (212) 752-7500. *#\n4540; (212) 357-7405.\nEmery (president); 1441 Welton\nMarplan Research Inc.; F. J. Van\nSt., Denver, Colo. 80202; (303)\nmember of the National Council on\n244-8045.\n*\nBortel (president); 485 Lexing-\nPublic Polls\nton Ave., New York, N.Y. 10017;\nResearch Systems Inc.; R. B. Col-\n-non-profit and/or academic\n(212) 697-8788.\nlier (president): 1314 Burch\nresults are always publicly published\nMid-South Opinion Surveys; Eu-\nDrive, Evansville, Ind. 47711;\ngene Newsom (president): 1750\n(812) 867-2463.\ncompiled by Ann Northrop\n:\n1702\n8/14/71\nsecretary, \"There's no activity of any\nTechniques\nAMPAC, see Vol. 2, No. 31, p. 1659.)\nNATIONAL\nkind. He doesn't have advance\nIn Barabba's view, \"A critical abil-\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nmen. He doesn't have money men.\nThe late Elmo Roper, a pioneer\nity of a good (polling) firm is to have\nHe doesn't have delegate people. He\npollster, said that the polling business\nexperience in overcoming the hesi-\ndoesn't have pollsters.\"\nsat on a three-legged stool: sampling,\ntancy on the part of some campaign\nJackson-A no-polling report also\ninterviewing and interpretation.\nmanagers to really make use of this in-\ncame from the office of Sen. Henry\nThis base has remained constant\nformation. If you accept a campaign\nM. Jackson, of Washington, whose\nsince Roper began polling in the mid-\nas an economic concept-that is, you\nsupporters are gearing up for a major\n1930s. But the kind of information\nare going to attempt to allocate lim-\neffort in next March's Florida pri-\nthat sophisticated politicians are seek-\nited resources in the most efficient\nmary.\ning and the kind of techniques that\nway then this information is cru-\nS. Sterling Munro Jr.. Jackson's\npollsters are using to obtain it for\ncial.\"\nadministrative assistant, said that\nthem have changed profoundly.\nCosts and timing: Thomas W. Ben-\n\"When your investment is zero, your\nA Midwestern Senator said, \"Quite\nham, vice president of Opinion Re-\ncost-benefit ratio is 100 per cent.\"\nfrankly, the trial heats and the stock\nsearch and its liaison man with the\nSharing the burden: At a dinner\nquestion about approval is probably\nWhite House, said: \"If you're running\nmeeting of Presidential candidates,\nthe least valuable, so far as I'm con-\na campaign where you're going to\ncalled by party chairman Lawrence F.\ncerned, because there isn't a thing you\nspend $500,000, you better put 10 per\nO'Brien July 14, Muskie proposed\ncan do with that kind of information.\"\ncent aside for polling research, be-\nundertaking a pooled public opinion\n(The Senator, who is up for reelection\ncause it can make the other 90 per\nsurvey, utilizing a single pollster, as a\nin 1972, will be polling heavily, but he\ncent twice or three times more effi-\nmeans of saving campaign funds.\ndoes not want his constituents to\ncient\nThe Muskie plan will be studied\nknow about it because \"it weakens my\n\"You might want to do a \"base\nfurther in staff meetings, but it was\nposture.\")\nstudy' early in the campaign year.\nnot greeted with enthusiasm.\nUtility: William Hamilton, now poll-\nThis could be an interview that lasts\nNone of the dark-horse candidates\ning for Muskie, said that private polls\n45 minutes to an hour and it's a big,\n-such as Sen. Fred R. Harris, of\ncan tell candidates what issues are im-\nexpensive undertaking. But, from that,\nOklahoma, and Rep. Wilbur D. Mills,\nportant enough to change voting deci-\nwe can do selective studies. We can\nof Arkansas-are having any polling\nsions; whether these issues can be\ncheck on changing issues.\ndone for them, and they are not in-\nwelded into a campaign theme; and\n\"And then we can do a small-scale\nterested in paying an equal share\nhow the over-all political climate, in-\ntelephone effort, re-interviewing cer-\nof the cost of a joint survey for-\ncluding the other candidates in a race,\ntain people (a technique known as\nmula that Muskie's staff regards as\nwill affect the outcome.\npanelback), to see if they have changed\nthe most equitable.\n(Pollster Tully Plesser said his polls\ntheir minds. You can develop a so-\nAll pollsters interviewed by Na-\nrevealed that a referendum on liquor-\nphisticated tool and it can still have\ntional Journal opposed the shared-\nby-the-drink was a major factor in the\ngood economy to it.\"\ndata proposal, although they did not\nsenatorial contest in Texas in 1970,\nCosts of seemingly comparable sur-\nwant to say so publicly for fear of\nbecause of the voters who were at-\nveys can vary as much as 30 per cent,\noffending Muskie, whose business\ntracted to the polls by the liquor is-\ndepending on the procedures, the\nthey believe is still up for grabs. One\nsue.)\noverhead and the profit margin.\npollster said, \"You can't do that any\nInterest groups who are seeking to\nSenatorial and gubernatorial candi-\nmore than you could work for Ford\naffect the outcome of an election may\ndates commonly budget $30,000 for\nand General Motors. It just seems un-\ntake polls that elicit complex data.\npolling research over the course of a\nnatural to me.\"\n\"COPE can buy 10 surveys and de-\ncampaign. One statewide poll in a big\nliver. them to the candidates,\" said\nstate may cost $10,000 to $15,000; a\npollster John Kraft. \"It gives them a\nsurvey of a congressional district can\nFeedback\ncertain control over the campaign.\"\ncost up to $10,000. (The techniques of\nOliver A. Quayle III takes con-\nThe Committee on Political Educa-\nconducting both polls are essentially\nfidential polls for many leading\ntion, the political action arm of the\nthe same; the only major saving is in\nDemocratic politicians. He also\nAFL-CIO, has been taking polls since\ntravel.)\ntakes polls for Harper's magazine,\n1958. (For a report on COPE, see Vol.\n\"People are beginning to see that\nwhich owns Quayle's polling com-\n2, No. 37, p. 1963.)\nthis kind of data is much more valu-\npany outright and which, in turn, is\nSimilarly, the American Medical\nable if you can establish a trend,\" said\nowned by the Minneapolis Star and\nPolitical Action Committee (AM-\nTeeter of Detroit's Market Opinion\nTribune Co.\nPAC), through its state organizations,\nResearch. This, of course, entails mul-\n\"We bounce things off Ollie,\"\nspent more than $400,000 to poll for\ntiple interviews; in the field, interview-\nsaid William S. Blair, the Harper's\nRepublicans between the 1968 and\ners are paid $2 an hour or more, plus\npublisher. \"In other words, here's a\n1970 elections. Vincent P. Barabba,\nexpenses.\nguy who wants to do a piece about\nchairman of Decision Making Infor-\nDMI's Barabba said: \"The diffi-\na particular politician. We might\nmation Inc., a California-based AM-\nculty you have in measuring costs be-\nsend the writer up to talk to Quayle.\nPAC pollster, said: \"Those guys (at\ntween companies is knowing whether\nObviously, Ollie knows a hell of a\nAMPAC) have done as much to im-\nyou're measuring apples and apples or\nlot about individual politicians in\nprove the systematic analysis of the\napples and oranges. There are a lot of\nthis country.\"\npolitical process as any organization\nways to cut costs in this kind of re-\nin existence today.\" (For a report on\nsearch. Unfortunately, there is a direct\n:\n8/14/71\n1703\nThe Rise of the Polls: Bloopers Amid Improving Aim\nNATIONAL\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nAlthough political polls are com-\nvelt. The pool results helped drive\nAfter the election, the Social\nmonplace today, the use of scien-\nthe Literary Digest out of business\nScience Research Council, a private\ntific surveying techniques is less\nas public confidence in the maga-\ngroup, named a committee to in-\nthan 40 years old. Yet, in one way\nzine sagged.\nquire into the pollsters' methods.\nor another, polls have been part of\nScientific polls: The first scientific\nThe panel found that the sam-\nthe campaign scene for nearly 150\nbased on a representative\npling method they used was a valid\nyears.\nsample of the population was\none, but that the pollsters, in their\nStraw polls: In 1824, reporters\ntaken in July 1935, when Fortune\noverconfidence, ignored both un-\nfor the Harrisburg Pennsylvanian\nreported on public reaction to Roo-\ndecided voters and others who had\nwalked the streets of Wilmington,\nsevelt and his New Deal programs.\nswitched from Dewey to Truman\nDel., asking people whom they\nThe poll was taken by three part-\nlate in the campaign. They had also\npreferred as their Presidential\nners, Paul T. Cherington, Elmo B.\nunderestimated the turnout; this\ncandidate. In that first recorded\nRoper Jr. and Richardson K.\nmade Dewey look better than he\nUnited States newspaper poll, the\nWood. They had been conducting\nshould have.\nPennsylvanian found Andrew Jack-\nprivate market research and were\nThrough post-election polling,\nson running well ahead of John\nlooking for a dramatic way to prove\nthe committee found that one voter\nQuincy Adams. (Although Jackson\nthe degree of accuracy that could be\nin seven decided how he would cast\nwon a popular plurality, the elec-\nobtained through scientific sam-\nhis ballot during the last two weeks\ntion was thrown into the House of\npling. The idea was especially at-\nof the campaign and that 75 per\nRepresentatives, which picked\ntractive to Roper who, according to\ncent of this group voted for Truman.\nAdams.)\nhis son, Burns W. Roper, was fas-\nControversy: In 1968, a dispute\nNewspapers took straw polls\ncinated by politics and \"always\narose shortly before the Republican\nthroughout the rest of the 1800s.\nwanted to be a United States Sen-\nNational Convention that many\nThe Farm Journal became the first\nator.\"\npollsters now feel damaged public\nnational magazine to take one-in\nGallup's scientific sampling also\ntrust in the business.\n1912. By 1928, newspapers and\nwas published in 1935, when a\nAt the time, Gov. Nelson A.\nmagazines were conducting six na-\ngroup of newspapers agreed to syn-\nRockefeller of New York was bas-\ntionwide and 79 state and local\ndicate his findings in a Sunday\ning much of his campaign for the\nstraw polls.\ncolumn. Archibald M. Crossley\nPresidential nomination on the\nBy far the most prominent of the\nentered the business in 1936, at the\nground that polls showed he would\nmagazine straw polls was that of\nbehest of King Features.\nbe a stronger candidate than Mr.\nthe Literary Digest, which began\nFor many years, Roper, Gallup\nNixon when pitted against the even-\npolling in 1916. The Digest's streak\nand Crossley were \"the big three\"\ntual Democratic nominee.\nof correct Presidential predictions\nof the polling business; most of the\nRockefeller and Nixon aides\nremained unbroken until 1936,\npollsters active today got their start\nwere circulating private polls with\nwhen the magazine reported that\nin their organizations.\nconflicting results on various \"trial\nAlfred M. Landon would win 59.1\nThe three men also were great\nheats.\" Then a Gallup Poll, taken\nper cent of the popular vote and\nfriends who bet on which of the\nJuly 19-21, showed Mr. Nixon as\n370 of 531 electoral votes. Actually,\nthree would come closest to predic-\nthe stronger candidate. Three days\nFranklin D. Roosevelt won 60.2 per\nting the outcome of a Presidential\nlater on July 30, a Harris Survey\ncent of the popular vote and 523\nelection. Roper won in 1936, 1940\nwas published, with data collected\nelectoral votes.\nand 1944, each time collecting a\nJuly 25-29, which showed Rocke-\nGeorge H. Gallup, a pioneer sci-\ncase of Scotch from Gallup and\nfeller more likely to defeat Hubert\nentific pollster, publicly predicted\nCrossley.\nH. Humphrey or Eugene J. Mc-\nat the time that the Digest would\nAlthough Roosevelt used private\nCarthy.\nfall on its face; he was meanwhile\npolls informally to discern the pub-\nOn Aug. 1, George H. Gallup Jr.\naccurately predicting the results.\nlic mood, the first major private\nand Louis Harris issued an unprec-\nAs Gallup noted, the Digest\npolitical poll was taken by Roper\nedented joint statement that Rocke-\nmailed its more than 10 million\nfor Jacob K. Javits in 1946 when\nfeller had \"now moved to an open\nsample ballots solely to car owners\nJavits was running on the Liberal\nlead\" over the two Democrats. The\nand telephone subscribers-two\nParty and Republican lines for a\nstatement was widely interpreted as\ngroups at the time heavily weighted\nHouse seat from upper Manhattan.\na public retraction by the Gallup\nwith high-income people who tend-\nDisaster: For a time, the pollsters'\norganization, but none of the prin-\ned to vote Republican and still\nsuccess in predicting election results\ncipals has discussed the incident\ndo. The 2,376,523 respondents to\ngave them oracular status. But the\npublicly.\nthe Digest poll tended to be the\nbubble burst in 1948.\nWhen the campaign got under\nwealthiest and best-educated sub-\nIn that year, all the major polls\nway, the pollsters accurately meas-\ngroup in the sample, which biased\npicked Thomas E. Dewey to defeat\nured the Humphrey surge in Octo-\nthe results still further. Further-\nHarry S Truman by a landslide.\nber and the decline in support for\nmore, the Digest failed to take into.\nRoper stopped polling in mid-Sep-\nGeorge C. Wallace, the third-party\naccount six million new voters, five\ntember, certain that Dewey would\ncandidate.\nmillion of whom voted for Roose-\nwin.\nAnn Northrop\n1704\n8/14/71\nrelationship between costs and qual-\nmail out questionnaires (to interview-\n\"None of the private pollsters do\nNATIONAL\nity.\"\ners). I also think we get higher cooper-\ncomplete probability sampling be-\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nThe product: John Kraft, who has 18\nation rates around the country than is\ncause of the prohibitive expense.\nyears' experience working for both\npossible in face-to-face interviews. In\n(Quayle noted that this was not the\nDemocratic and Republican candi-\nsome areas, you can't get people to go\ncase for the Gallup Poll and the Har-\ndates, said he normally prepares a\nin at all.\"\nris Survey, \"because their necks are\nwritten report, about 40 pages in\nCleavage: Telephone survey research\non the line.\")\nlength, of which three-fourths is in-\nfor politicians has mushroomed with\n\"You pick up a point to a point-\nterpretation. \"I'll also supply the\nthe widespread use of bulk-rate long-\nand-a-half of margin with probability\n(computer) printouts when I'm asked\ndistance (WATS) lines and computer-\nsamples. I've done them when I've\nto, but I've had only two such re-\nized random generation of telephone\nhad to, when I knew I was in a differ-\nquests.\"\nnumbers. But some members of the\nent ball game.\"\nKraft, like most other pollsters, pre-\npolitical polling fraternity remain op-\nJohn Kraft and his wife, Fran Far-\nfers to discuss results and their mean-\nposed to telephone surveys.\nrell Kraft, who is also a well-known\ning with the candidate and his staff.\nCharles W. Roll Jr., president of\npollster, agreed with Quayle. \"There is\n\"In many cases, it's best to talk it\nPolitical Surveys and Analysis Inc.\nno significant difference in the result,\"\nout,\" he said.\n(PS&A), which has done most of the\nKraft said.\nUnfavorable reports can bring com-\npolling commissioned by Nelson\nSeveral pollsters disagreed, how-\nplications.\nRockefeller, said: \"If I were buying\never. One was PS&A's Roll, who\nTeeter recalled: \"I had one guy sev-\nsurveys for a political campaign that\nsaid: \"The respectability of quota\neral years ago who had been working\nI felt was terribly important, and there\nsamples went out in 1948, with the\nhard for two or three months and got\nwas enough money, I wouldn't touch\nTruman-Dewey election. You don't\na bad poll and just sat in a hotel room\na telephone survey. I have reason to\nknow what your sample error is. Luck\nand drank for about four days. We\nbelieve (from Rockefeller campaigns)\nis with them. But it's certainly not\ncouldn't move him; he was in shock\nthat some people are far less critical of\nenough to hang your hat on, I would\nbecause the poll still showed him 10-\nindividuals when asked about them\nthink.\"\n15 points behind. He eventually\nover the phone, and that, of course,\nORC's Benham said his firm used\nwon.\nNow, we talk a lot about\ncreates a different result.\nonly probability samples. However, he\nhow to lay bad ones on people before\n\"If I were involved in a Presidential\nsaid: \"In many situations, you can use\nwe do it. It's a very tricky thing.\"\ncampaign, I would throw the tele-\nthe best scientific probability sample\nDevelopments: Most pollsters inter-\nphone away, unless there was an ex-\nor a mediocre quota sample and get\nviewed by National Journal said they\ntremely urgent time factor involved.\"\nthe same because there's no\nrecently have started making more ex-\n(Roll is an employee of George H.\ncritical element that would make an\nhaustive studies of sub-groups and an-\nGallup, who bought PS&A from its\nessential difference.\"\nalyzing the response to various issues.\nfounder, Archibald M. Crossley, in\nAssessment\n\"There's particular interest in the\n1970; PS&A uses Gallup's sampling,\nyoung voters in '72,\" Quayle said.\ninterviewing and tabulating facilities,\nPollsters and politicians coexist un-\nQuayle also reported that he is ask-\nwhich are based solely on field inter-\neasily, needing each other and yet\ning more media-related questions.\nviews.)\naware of each other's limitations.\n\"It's the sort of question I don't like\nDMI's Barabba said: \"You can get\nBoth are victims of a vicious circle\nto ask, because I don't think people\nmore about a person at the door than\nin politics: the degree of media expo-\nreally know how they get their infor-\non the telephone. The telephone's\nsure affects poll results; poll results af-\nmation. I'm amazed at how little the\ngreat strength is that you get wider\nfect the amount of campaign funds\ntelevision people know sometimes\ndistribution of your sample and inter-\nthat can be raised; campaign funds af-\n(about the makeup of their audiences)\nview clusters.\"\nfect media exposure.\nin a given market. But we're learning\nDon M. Muchmore, chairman of\nDrawer syndrome: Muchmore thinks\nto work better together.\"\nOpinion Research of California, who\ncampaign managers, more than candi-\nORC's Benham said his firm had\nhas done comparative studies of tele-\ndates, are responsible for poor rela-\nbeen able to shorten substantially the\nphone and field interview polls, said\ntionships. \"We give them a battle\ntime period from \"problem to data\"\nthe field work produces superior re-\nplan, and many times they don't want\nby using more telephone interviews.\nsults and should be used, except in\nto use it because they have a feeling\n\"We've also learned how to weigh\nhigh-urgency polls of national scope.\nit's going to go a different way. Some-\nthem better.\"\n\"With no eye-to-eye contact, there's\ntimes they're right; sometimes they're\nWilliam M. Longman, president of\nno trust,\" Muchmore said.\nwrong. But, more often, they're\nCentral Surveys Inc., said in a tele-\nSample methods: Political pollsters\nwrong.\"\nphone interview from Shenandoah,\nalso divide over whether to use quota\nAnother Californian, Vincent Ba-\nIowa, that his firm now was able to\nor probability samples. (For a discus-\nrabba, said: \"We see an awful lot of\nprovide overnight results to political\nsion of sample error, see statistical\nwhat we refer to as the right-hand\nclients through arrangements for the\nbox.)\ndrawer syndrome. You give a guy a\nuse of computers at the interview sites.\nQuayle said: \"Nobody does proba-\nsurvey-you make a fancy presenta-\nRobert K. McMillan of Chilton Re-\nbility samples, strictly speaking. And\nand he says, 'Gee, that's great!'\nsearch Services, a proponent of tele-\nif you did, it would be obscene, be-\nAnd he opens up the right-hand\nphone interviewing, said: \"In a day,\ncause you'd be charging a guy an arm\ndrawer of his desk and puts it in there,\nyou can do here what it would take\nand a leg for a greater degree of accu-\nand that's the last time it's used.\nyou four weeks to do if you had to\nracy than he needs\n\"Then, if someone asks what are\nyou basing all those decisions on, he\ngroup, said: \"We got committed to\nif potential backers thought Javits\n8/14/71\n1705\nopens up the drawer and says, \"Well,\ndoing the (1968) thing without assess-\ncould not lose.\nNATIONAL\nwe got a survey.\ning as much as we should have in ad-\nThe poll was nevertheless \"leaked\"\nJOURNAL\n© CPR 1971\nMOR's Teeter believes the worst is\nvance.\" (For a report on the House\nto The New York Times for its \"band-\nover. \"Two or three years ago,\" he\nand Senate GOP campaign commit-\nwagon\" effect and because it showed\nsaid, \"we had a real problem with\ntees, see Vol. 2, No. 31, p. 2100.)\nJavits to be the strongest Republican\nguys who were using it for the first\nPressure points: In a profession linked\npolitician in New York state at the\ntime and thought they had just bought\nclosely to the academic community,\ntime.\nthemselves magic buttons. With some\nbut with no entry standards, salesman-\nThe release of the poll led to a\npeople, it became a narcotic. If they\nship remains a persistent problem.\ncharge by O'Dwyer that it was a delib-\ndidn't know what to do, they had an-\n\"It's the gut problem in the business,\"\nerate attempt to influence the New\nother poll taken.\"\nsaid Albert H. Cantril, a Washington-\nYork Daily News Poll, which was\nGetting more: From the client's side, a\nbased polling consultant. Cantril is the\nscheduled to commence canvassing\nDemocratic Senator said privately: \"I\nauthor, with Charles Roll, of Hopes\njust after the GOP poll was released.\ndon't know of anyone around here\nand Fears of the American People\nWhile the Javits \"leak\" was a delib-\nwho is having polling done and who\n(Universe Books, 1971), which is\nerate one, candidates often insist that\nwouldn't like to get more than he's\nbased on Gallup research.\na pollster report directly to them in an\ngetting out of it. But I know it's sim-\nSaid Cantril: \"The only way you\neffort to control access to private polls\nply a matter of dollars. They have a\ncan seek new business is to tear down\non the campaign staff.\nproduct to sell; they have costs.\"\nthe other guy's methods and try to\nPollsters and politicians are coming\nIf finances are often a central prob-\nshow politicians that they are not get-\nincreasingly to agree that there is a\nlem to the pollster, they are even more\nting anything too useful. There are no\nlimit to what surveys can accomplish.\nof one to the politician. A Republican\nteaching materials you can use unless\nMOR's Teeter said: \"You can't go\nSenator from the Northeast said:\nyou break the confidence of a private\nand say to some guy, 'Look, if you go\n\"There isn't any question that I\n(political) client.\"\nout and take this stand, you'll increase\ncouldn't solve if I wanted to spend\nPolitical pollsters also are encoun-\nyour support 4 per cent.' That's\n$25,000 for a survey.\"\ntering fresh problems in seeking to as-\ncrazy.\"\nBut the difficulties range beyond in-\nsemble valid public opinion data. An\nProgress: If political pollsters are still\nsufficient funds. A campaign manager\nexecutive at Chilton Research Services\nsearching for a firmer foundation,\nwho has worked with pollsters for\nin Philadelphia said: \"There's no use\nthere are nevertheless signs of prog-\nmany years said privately:\nkidding anybody; the cooperative rate\nress.\n\"I think there's room in this busi-\nis decreasing every year. It used to be\nQuayle said: \"A couple of years\nness for someone who really wants to\n20 years ago if we got a 3-per cent re-\nago, everybody was trying to get into\ndrive it wide open. He could drive all\nfusal rate we were concerned about it;\nthe act. And that's not happening any-\nthese guys out. For example, why not\ntoday, they are running 10 and 12 per\nmore. A lot of commercial firms-the\nadd an entire demographic package\ncent.\nguys who were researching soap and\nwith sample electoral analysis and pri-\n\"It's all part of the misuse of re-\nso forth-began to dabble in politics,\nority ranking of states, congressional\nsearch techniques. People today are\nlooking at it as a new market. But\ndistricts and counties, with cross-data\njust more suspicious. You know, a\nyou've got to know something about\nby issues. It's possible with computer\nsalesman calling up and saying he's\npolitics in this business. It's an art as\nanalysis. That's a service I could really\nmaking a survey and the next thing\nwell as a science.\"\nuse.\"\nhe's knocking at your door.'\nRoll believes that what is needed is\nIn 1968, the National Republican\nDangers: Private polls can cause com-\nbetter liaison between the campaign\nCongressional (Campaign) Committee\nplications in campaigns that are not\nand the pollsters \"politically sensi-\nand its Senate counterpart bought a\nalways readily apparent. For example,\ntive men inside the campaign organi-\n$400,000 survey through Datamatics\nSen. Jacob K. Javits, R-N.Y., received\nzation who are at the same time highly\nInc., a subsidiary of Spencer-Roberts\na poll from Tully Plesser in 1968 that\nsophisticated about the use of polling\nand Associates, a California-based\nshowed Javits leading his Democratic\ntechniques.\"\ncampaign consulting firm. Datamatics\nopponent, Paul O'Dwyer, 48-16.\n\"It's a funny business,\" another\nis now dissolved; at the time, it was\nJavits' advisers were hesitant about\nwell-known pollster said. \"When you\nheaded by Vincent Barabba.\nreleasing the poll, despite the strong\nget all this stuff done, the candidates\nNeither the House nor the Senate\nlead, for fear it would not be believed\nlook at it and if it doesn't really agree\ncommittee is scheduling any polling\nand would raise a \"credibility issue.\"\nwith them, they're very suspicious.\nprojects for 1972. Paul A. Theis, direc-\nYet another consideration was fear\nBut if it agrees with them, it's the best\ntor of public relations for the House\nthat it would be harder to raise money\npoll in America.\"\na\nWashington Pressures/Cable TV group wins first round;\nfaces White House, congressional review\nby Bruce E. Thorp\n1706\n8/14/71\nThe cable television industry is about\naction to put this and other rules into\nhome delivery of facsimile copies of\nNATIONAL\nJOURNAL\nto become an adult, but the last\neffect sooner.\nmail and library books.\n© CPR 1971\nmonths of its adolescence are proving\nIn an unprecedented action that\nSome members of the industry now\nto be the most harrowing and the\nreflected the controversial nature\navoid using the name their industry\nmost exciting it has ever experienced.\nof issues surrounding cable develop-\nadopted early in its technological de-\nThe federal government now seems\nment, the commission merely an-\nvelopment-CATV, which stands for\non the point of lifting restrictions\nnounced that it was proposing to\ncommunity antenna television and re-\nthat have impeded development of the\nadopt the new rules by the end of the\nfers to the relatively simple task of\nmedium. This could lead to explosive\nyear. Burch said that the interval\ndelivering off-the-air signals.\ngrowth in the industry and to a rev-\nwould afford Congress and the White\nThe NCTA estimates that by 1980\nolution in communications in this\nHouse time to react.\nthere could be more than 5,000 cable\ncountry.\nThere is reason to believe that both\nsystems serving about 25 million\nThe Federal Communications Com-\nCongress and the executive branch are\nhomes; cable serves about six million\nmission on Aug. 5 took a step in\ngoing to scrutinize the new rules.\nhomes now. Annual revenues by 1980\nthat direction, but the decision still\nThe White House has demonstrated\ncould exceed $2 billion and net worth\nis subject to review at the White\ncould total $5 billion, the association\nHouse and in Congress.\nplant\nsays, compared with $350 million and\nThus, the industry and its Washing-\na flower\n$1.2 billion now.\nton trade association, the National\nin the\nFreeze: Cable has the potential to\nCable Television Association, face\nvast\nLET CABLE\nwire nearly all the buildings in the\nseveral more months of anguish and\nwasteland\nTV GROW\ncountry into a massive communica-\nof battle with their arch rival, the\ntions network, and to deliver pro-\nNational Association of Broadcast-\ngrams to anyone on request from vast\ners. They must be careful lest the in-\nelectronic storage centers.\ndustry snatch defeat from the jaws of\nOver-the-air broadcasting could\nvictory.\nwell disappear.\nDifficult times: The government\nFORGET-ME-NOT\nThe potential effects of these devel-\nactions are coming at a difficult time\nopments on society and on the econ-\nfor the NCTA, which is without an\nomy are so uncertain that the FCC in\neffective leader.\nits interest by establishing a Cabinet-\n1968 clamped a lid on industry growth\nDonald V. Taverner, NCTA presi-\nlevel committee on cable television\nuntil further study could be made.\ndent since Jan. 1, 1970, was ef-\nand by sponsoring meetings recently\nMost affected were large cities, where\nfect - fired by the board of directors\nwith interest groups that would be\ncable systems were, in effect, pro-\nin June, although he may continue in\naffected by the rules.\nhibited from importing television sig-\noffice until Dec. 31, when his contract\nAnd broadcasting interests, which\nnals from other markets.\nexpires.\nhave strong allies in Congress, may\nThaw: If the FCC finally adopts its\nA search for a new president is un-\nseek action to change those rules it\nrules, the industry will begin to grow\nder way, and those who were dissatis-\ndeems prejudicial to its interests.\nagain.\nfied with Taverner hope for a strong\nBroadcasters have long tried to delay\nCable operators are eager to begin\nleader more familiar with the indus-\ndevelopment of the cable industry,\nimporting distant signals to large\ntry than Taverner has been.\nfearing that cable would reduce their\ncities, so that cable systems-without\nThe association's new national\nmarkets.\ngreat cost can give subscribers some-\nchairman, John Gwin, is filling the\nIndustry growth: The cable television\nthing new. After they attract enough\nrole of industry leader during Taver-\nindustry is about 20 years old, but it\nsubscribers and generate enough rev-\nner's lame-duck period. But Gwin be-\nhas barely begun to develop toward\nenues, they can begin to offer addi-\ncame chairman only on July 8, and he\nits full potential. Most of the esti-\ntional, unique services, operators say.\nis not entirely familiar with the Wash-\nmated 2,750 cable systems today-\n(For a report on the industry and the\nington scene. Gwin is a division vice\n1,095 of them are members of the\nproposed rules, see No. 1, p. 1.)\npresident of Cox Cable Communica-\nNCTA little more for their sub-\nIndustry rift: Most cable systems are\ntions Inc., a large cable company, and\nscribers than deliver improved versions\nvery small, with fewer than 1,000 sub-\noperates a cable system in Robinson,\nof signals already available on the air.\ncribers, and they provide only off-the-\nIII.\nSome of them deliver signals to iso-\nair signals. Owners of these \"mom\nNew rules: Dean Burch, chairman of\nlated mountain and rural areas where\nand pop\" systems have little interest\nthe Federal Communications Com-\nthey could not be seen otherwise.\nin whether the federal government\nmission, on Aug. 5 announced the\nCable's potential hinges on its abil-\ntakes the lid off cable development.\ncommission's intention to issue new\nity to deliver a multitude of channels\nMost small systems are not even\nrules governing cable television, to be\nto homes and offices to supplement\nmembers of the NCTA, and those that\neffective March 1, 1972. One of the\npresent television service, which is\nare want the association to fend off\nrules, allowing all cable operators to\nlimited by technology and economics\ngovernment regulation as much as\ntransmit out-of-town signals to\nto a relatively few channels in a given\npossible; they want to maintain the\ntheir subscribers, was crucial to the\narea.\nstatus quo.\ncable industry.\nIndustry representatives talk of pro-\nAt the other extreme are the large\nIndustry leaders hailed the FCC\nviding any number of new services,\nsystems, with thousands of subscribers\nproposal, but they were disappointed\nfrom customized education courses to\nwho demand extra services and who\nthat the FCC had not taken decisive\ncoverage of neighborhood events to\nmake it economically worthwhile for\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nNAEHINGTON\nAdministrativaly Confidential\nAugust 3, 1971\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nL. HIGBY\nFROM:\nGORDON STRACHAN\nSUBJECT:\nNational Journal\non Polls\nAndrew\nDr. Derge called me this morning at 11:30 a.m. to report\nthat he had just received a call from Andrew Glass of the\nNational Journal who told Derge's secretary that he Was\ndoing an article for the Journal on polls and would there-\nfore like to talk with Dr. Derge. Dr. Derge refused to\ntalk to him but called me to advise of the fact that\nGlass had tried to reach him.\nAndrew Glass called me at 1:10 p.m. and I, too, did not\ntake the call.\nA check with Ed Harper indicates that he knows Andrew\nGlass but had not received a call from him recently.\nApparently Andrew Glass recently did an article for the\nNational Journal on revenue sharing and gave the Máminis-\ntration a very rough going over. Harper reports that\nAndrew Glass breached an agreement with Jamie McLane on\nrevenuing sharing as he was not to directly quote Mr.\nMcLane.\nChecks with Ken Cole's office and John Campbell's office\nindicate that they have not received calls from Andrew\nGlass. Neither you nor Mr. Haldeman have received calls.\nA check with Tom Benham, however, indicates that he talked\nwith Andrew Glass about a week ago for 15-20 minutes. The\nstory Benham gives me is that Andrew Glass called him in\nthe regular course of his calls to Gallup and Harris, etc.,\nabout political polling. Benham reports that he reviewed\nhis involvement in past campaigns but he emphasizes that he\ndid not disclose Dr. Derge's name nor mine. According to\nBenham, the National Journal article will be out in one week.\nBruce says our only contact at National Journal is Bonafede\nand that requests to him go through Hiegler's office.\nShould I have Ziegler's office contact Mr. Bonafede about\nAndrew Glass' article?\nL.NO\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nHRH:GS:lm\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 N Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nHRH:GS:lm\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand lierb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nHRH:GS:lm\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n'&\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nfeel Chron\nAugust 16, 1971\nDear Mr. Glass:\nYour letter of August the 10th comments on\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning\nan article on political polls. As you\nprobably know, the offices of Ron Ziegler\nand Herb Klein try to facilitate the flow\nof information from the government to the\npublic through reporters. The inconvenience\nresulting from Gordon Strachan not returning\nyour call might have been alleviated had you\ngone through Herb Klein or Ron Ziegler.\nSincerely,\nH.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNational Journal\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nHRH:GS:lm\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nMr. Andrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nNATIONAL JOURNAL\n1730 M Street, N.W.\nWashington, D.C. 20036\n730 M Jabel, N.W., WashinGeo, D.C. 20030, Telephone RUL, 000\nAugust 10, 1971\nMr. H.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nThe White House\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Haldeman:\nI read with interest that you feel the President has a\nhostile press corps because most are Democrats.\nI would submit the problem runs deeper than that.\nAs a case in point, I recently wrote an article on political\npolling -- including White House polls. I received no ofricial\ncooperation. My calls, including one to your assistant, Cordon\nStrachan, went unreturned.\nThat never used to happen in the Kennedy and Johnson Adminis-\ntration. Could it account for some of the hostility you as-\ncribe to partisan feeling?\nReporters do have political viewpoints. I voted for Mr. Nixon\nbecause I agreed with his program (and not because he was un-\nfailingly gracious when I covered him, off and on, for the\nNew York Herald Tribune and Washington Post.) I am interested\nin the political process -- sufficiently SO to have taken\nleaves to work for two Republican Senators.\nBut I am also dedicated to honest journalism and, consequently,\nput off by the kind of treatment I encountered in doing the\npolling story.\nThis letter is written in the spirit of trying to promote better\nrelations; I hope, in the future, they will be.\nSincerely,\nAndrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nmagust S, 1971\nzon.\nMEDLY\nFROM\nCOLLON\nDr. Desge called ... this TO 11:00 so\ncusto\nto\njune\nClobal\n00\nCOM\n3\ncoung CM article Bott THE\nC.L.\npolice\nCome like 20 CARD DR. DE. Derge\nCHEM to Mill but called the CO of CAR face Child\nCharge sed trice to Leach\nClass CALLED TO at 1.1. your and =, LOO, 4_C not\ntake the call.\neliden with Hamper included Chard\nno\nGlans\nDUC\nnow\nnot\nthree\nGIF are an NOT\nINVOICE may and gave\na ver; todge goans come. CLINE\nIndicated CLass becaused OK experience with Statio client C.\nrovenuing sharing as he WORL not to directly quote\nTHE\nMolland.\nChecks with Man Colo's office John Campbell's\nindicate that they have not received calls from\nChass. Noither you nor No. have received calls\neither.\nA check with Tom Bonham, nowever, indicates that to talket\nWITH Androw Glaba about is week ago for 15-20 minutes.\nseary Bonham gives ICE is there indrev Class called libert 11.\nshe regular COULDS of ALC calls to Gallup and Narcia, cool,\nabout political polling. Bonken reports that he revie 00\ninvolvement 10 past DUC he emphacize. time\ndid not disclose Dr. Dezigio AMO nor mine. Recording to\nContrain, the National Southell article will DO OWC in ONC\nBruce syas our only concact are Mauronal Journal in Donalled\nand Chat requests to him go through Siegler's office.\nX have - office contact Mr. Bonefood alout\nAndrew Glass' cruicle?\nGS:lm\n1730 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036, Telephone (202) 833-8000\nAugust 10, 1971\nMr. H.R. Haldeman\nAssistant to the President\nThe White House\nNational Journal\nWashington, D.C. 20500\nDear Mr. Haldeman:\nI read with interest that you feel the President has a\nhostile press corps because most are Democrats.\nI would submit the problem runs deeper than that.\nAs a case in point, I recently wrote an article on political\npolling -- including White House polls. I received no official\ncooperation. My calls, including one to your assistant, Gordon\nStrachan, went unreturned.\nThat never used to happen in the Kennedy and Johnson Adminis-\ntration. Could it account for some of the hostility you as-\ncribe to partisan feeling?\nReporters do have political viewpoints. I voted for Mr. Nixon\nbecause I agreed with his program (and not because he was un-\nfailingly gracious when I covered him, off and on, for the\nNew York Herald Tribune and Washington Post.) I am interested\nin the political process -- sufficiently so to have taken\nleaves to work for two Republican Senators.\nBut I am also dedicated to honest journalism and, consequently,\nput off by the kind of treatment I encountered in doing the\npolling story.\nThis letter is written in the spirit of trying to promote better\nrelations; I hope, in the future, they will be.\nSincerely,\nAndrew 1.blors\nAndrew J. Glass\nContributing Editor\nDRAFT\nDear Mr. Glass:\nThank you for your letter of August the 10th regarding\nthe lack of \"official cooperation\" concerning your article\non political polls.\nI regret any inconvenience which you may have encountered\nand if I may, I would suggest that in the future you contact\nthe offices of Ron Ziegler or Herb Klein as they do try to\nfacilitate the flow of information from the government to\nreporters and I am sure they would be glad to promptly\nassist you in any way possible.\nWith best regards.\nSincerely,\nHRH"
}