Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26146458",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 47-37",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146458"
}

{
    "id": "26146458",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146458",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 47-37",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nFrom Khachigian to Buchanan RE: comments from Eagleton's thoughts on Jane Fonda making anti-war broadcasts from Hanoi. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/24/1972\n\nFrom Khachigian and Buchanan to MacGregor RE: talking points in upcoming speech. 5 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/1/1972\n\nFrom Khachigian to Buchanan RE: letter to the editor from Isreal 'enough to put McGovern away for awhile with the Jewish vote.' 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/11/1972\n\nFrom Khachigian to Buchanan RE: Kevin Phillips portraying McGovern as Democratic party elite rather than the 'common man.' 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/7/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146458",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/58/1464/26146458/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-37.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/58/1464/26146458/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-37.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/58/1464/26146458/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-37.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146458",
    "naId": 26146458,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/58/1464/26146458/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-47/Contested-47-37.pdf",
    "mediaId": "b5b9238f70789fc0",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n47\n37\n7/24/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Khachigian to Buchanan RE:\ncomments from Eagleton's thoughts on Jane\nFonda making anti-war broadcasts from\nHanoi. 5 pgs.\n47\n37\n7/1/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Khachigian and Buchanan to\nMacGregor RE: talking points in upcoming\nspeech. 5 pgs.\n47\n37\n7/11/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Khachigian to Buchanan RE: letter to\nthe editor from Isreal 'enough to put\nMcGovern away for awhile with the Jewish\nvote. 2 pgs.\n47\n37\n7/7/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Khachigian to Buchanan RE: Kevin\nPhillips portraying McGovern as Democratic\nparty elite rather than the 'common man.' 2\npgs.\nTuesday, April 14, 2015\nPage 1 of 2\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n47\n37\n7/17/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom Khachigian to Dean RE: legal advice\non the use of videotape footage. 5 pgs.\nTuesday, April 14, 2015\nPage 2 of 2\nDOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]\nDOCUMENT\nDOCUMENT\nNUMBER\nTYPE\nSUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nN-1\nmemo\nKhachingia to Gliachen, re:\n7/31/72\n[Doc 147]\n((nx)\nHenry Himmelman, with\n[Doc 148]\nattached draft copy\nattachment\nmemo, Betty polanto\nre: Kindman, 7/28/72\nN.2\nMemor\nKhochigain ne.\n7/24/72\n( ( mg)\n[Doc 149]\nyesterdays performer on the\ninterniew shows with attached\ndraft cry\nN-3\nmeny\nKhadiyian yoBuchanag e:Eagleton's\n7/17/72\n[Doc 150]\nappearance on are the nation\"\nwith attached draft copy\nN-W\nmemo\nBuchaman a Khachyianto morting\n7/12/72\ncompany\n[Doc 151]\nre: Issuens arrewer performance,\n[Doc 212]\nanother C opy\nwith attached draft copy and\n[Doc 213]\nN-5\nmeno\nKhachigian to Busharen, willetter to\n7/11/72\n((my)\n[Doc 152]\nthe editor from Israel\nN-G\nmemo\nDraft copy of N-5 attached to N-5\n7/11/92\nV\n(nix)\n[Doc 214]\ncase file]\n,U-?\nMemo\nKhachigianto Buchavan, re: re me itor\ncy Dem party elite, with attached\n7/7/72\n[Doc 153]\n((n)\ndroft copy\nFILE GROUP TITLE\nBOX NUMBER\nKEN KHACHIGAN\n6\nFOLDER TITLE\nJuly [1972]\nRESTRICTION CODES\nA. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.\nE. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nB. National security classified information.\nfinancial information.\nC. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's\nF. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law\nrights.\nenforcement purposes.\nD. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy\nG. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.\nor a libel of a living person.\nH. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.\nNATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION\nNA FORM 1421 (4-85)\nDOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]\nP.S\nUMENT\nDOCUMENT\nNUMBER\nTYPE\nSUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nN-8\nmemo\nBucharen, Khashigian to Holden\n7/7/72\n[Doc 154]\nMec Figo, me: strategy houghts\nc(mp)\nfor period between conventions\nN-9\nmeme\nto Buchances re: Dealing\n7/3/72\n[Doc 155]\nwithin Howen of tar Dem Convinting\n(chip)\nwith attached droft copy\nN-10\nmemo\nKhachisin + Brehaman, 7e'.\n7/3/72\nDoc 156]\nC\nDem. Clatform it me Govern proposals,\nwith attached draftcopy\nN-11\nmemo\nKhachigian to Deah, re: use of\nCL/LIIL\nC\n[Doc 215]\nnetwork footage for ads, w/draft\nattached\nN12\nmemo\nKhachigian to Price (with draft)\n7-20-42\nC\n[Doc 211]\nse acceptance speech\nFILE GROUP TITLE\nBOX NUMBER\n6\nFOLDER TITLE\nJuly [1972]\nRESTRICTION CODES\nA. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.\nE. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or\nB. National security classified information.\nfinancial information.\nC. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's\nF. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law\nrights.\nenforcement purposes.\nD. Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy\nG. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.\nor a libel of a living person.\nH. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.\nNATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION\nNA FORM 1421 (4-85)\nPresidential Materials Review Board\nReview on Contested Documents\nCollection: Kenneth L. Khachigian\nBox Number:\n6\nFolder:\nJuly [1972]\nDocument\nDisposition\n147\nRetain\nOpen\n148\nRetain\nOpen\n149\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n150\nRetain\nOpen\n151\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n152\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n153\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n154\nRetain\nOpen\n155\nRetain\nOpen\n156\nRetain\nOpen\n211\nRetain\nOpen\n212\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n213\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n214\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n215\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 24, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nPAT BUCHANAN\nFROM:\nKEN KHACHIGIAN\nHere is the most egregious material out of yesterday's\nperformances on the interview shows -- things which I believe\nwe ought to jump on right away -- one way or the other.\nEagleton was asked what he thought about Jane Fonda making\nanti-war broadcasts from Hanoi. His answer:\n11\nI know Jane Fonda is a sort of a blithe,\nfloating figure, a free-thinker and a free-wheeler. I\nwouldn't try to circumscribe where she would visit. I\nwould not enthusiastically support broadcasting in North\nVietnam, but I am not going to try to control Miss Fonda or try\nto tell her how to live her life and I suspect she will not try\nto tell me how to live mine. 11\nHis absolute refusal to outrightly repudiate what Jane Fonda has\ndone is a blow against the men who are fighting and who have fought\nin Vietnam. Can you imagine what would have been said if the same\ndescriptions were made of \"Tokyo Rose\" or others of her ilk.\nPerhaps the VFW, American Legion and several on the Hill ought\nto go directly after Eagleton on this. Fletcher Thompson has been\ngiving Jane hell, maybe he do it to Eagleton as well.\nMcGovern made three statements on Face the Nation\" which are\nvery vulnerable. Asked: \"If in fact you were President and you pulled\nall the American troops out, and the North Vietnamese posed some other\ncondition and you didn't get the prisoners back, what do you do then?\"\nHe responded: \"Well, I think it's in our interest to get out in any\nevent, Mr. Morton. 11 I.e., we get out even if the POW's don't come\nback. This is a flat-out statement of admission that the POW's are\nsecondary in importance to getting out of Vietnam. This statement\ngot very little press attention, and it ought to be elevated this week.\n7/24/72\ncopies\nMEMROANDUM FOR PAT BUCHANAN\namc6+ MCG\nFROM: EEN KHACHIGIAN\nHere is the most egregious material out of yesterday's\nperfiormances on the interveew shows -- things which I\nbelieve we WM ought nk to jump on right away -- one way\nor thex *** other.\nWagleton was asked what he thought about Jane Fonda\nmaking anti-war broadcasts from His\nanswer:\n\"\nI know Jane Fonda is a sort of a blithe,\nfloating figure, a free-thinker and a free-wheeler. I wouldn't\ntry to circumscribe where wh she would visit. XXWEN I would\nnot enthusiastically support EXHE broadcasting in North\nVietnam, but I am not going to try to control Miss Fonda\nOR try to tell her how to livex her life and I suspect shw she\nwill not try to **** tell me how to live mine.\"\nHis absolute refusal to outrightly repudiate what\nJane Fonda has donex is ии patentiy a stap flow agin against the\nmen who are fighting and who have fought in Vietnam. Can you\nimagene what would have been said if the same descriptions\nwere made of \"Tokyo Rose\" or others of her ilk. Perhaps the\nVFW, American Legion and XXXXXX several on the Hill ought\nto go directly after Eagleton on this. Fletcher Thompson\nhas been giving Jane hell, maybe he'll do it to Eagleton as well.\npage 2\non \"Face the Nation\"\nMcGovern made three statements/whicha are £ very vulnerbble.\nAsked: \"If in fact you were President and you pulled all the\nAmeridan troops out, and the North Vietnamese posed some\nother condition and you didn't get the prisoners back, what\ndo you KM do then?\"\nHe responded: \"Well, I think it's in our interest to\nget our in any event, Mr. *Morton.' I.e., we get out\nèven if the POW's don't come back. This is a flat-out statement\nof admission that the POWn's are\nsecondary\nin importance to getting out of Vietnam.\nThis statement\ngot veary\nlittle press attention, and it ought to\nbe elevated this\nweek.\nAsked by Dave Broder if a \"McGovern Administration\" would\nof intervention\nhave taken the same action/as we did in the kDetroit busing\ncasex, McGoven responded: \"I KXM think not, Mr. Broder.\"\nFirst, Griffins sing k ought to be told about this as he may\nhave missed it. Second, 1701 ought to call our guns in\nMichigan and tell them about this -- that McGovern would not\nhave given them one ounce of support in their battle against\nbusing.\nFinally, McLGovearn suggested that we had provecateurs\nwho would go to Miami \"to cause trouble in order to win\nsympathy for the candidates they are demonstrating against.\"\nThis was to offset Doler's quote of last* week. We should\nmake the point againa and again that Rubin, Hoofman and others\npage 3\nH\nhave ******* endorsed McGovern. They are McGovern supporters.\nIf they do ****** anything to mess up our convention, Mc overn\nshould be heldxask at least partially reponsible. Moreover,\nif unless McGovearn has XMH any names of provocateurs, he\nbetter quit accusing us of XK trying to SEREE stage a\nbacklash at Miami. He is impugningmmxxxx our integrity,\nand an nameless allegations of *** this sort are surely\nbeneath the dignity of a U.S. Senator.\nJuly 12, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCLARK MACGREGOR\nFROM:\nPAT BUCHANAN\nKEN KHACHIGIAN\nFor your speech tomorrow and for your performance on Issues\nand Answers, we have the opportunity to get across an important\nline regarding the Dem convention. The line is the amazing\npolitical expediency and opportunism that McGovern stooped to\nto get his way at the convention -- the compromises he made which\nwent counter to his record as the man you can trust. Some of the\nexamples which follow should be compared with his position that\nhe wouldn't compromise his fundamental principles and that he\nwould never advocate a course in private that he was too embarrassed\nto pursue in public. I.e., spare us the hypocrisy and the goody-goody\nrhetoric about being a man you can trust.\nHe shafted the women in the South Carolina delegate vote.\nHe told the National Women's Political Caucus that he would support\ntheir position on the credentials fight, then he turned around and let\nthe gals go down the drain in order to perserve his hide on the\nCalifornia challenge. No one begrudges his desire to save his\npolitical future, but why did he lie to the caucus?\nFor months he has taken the position that he would get out of Vietnam\nlock, stock, and barrel and go on the good graces of the North Vietnam-\nese to get our POW's back. Yesterday, after meeting with the POW\nwives and getting their support, he said he would leave a residual force\nin Thailand and off the SVN coast in order to make sure we get our\nPOW's back. Just where does he stand?\nHe has endorsed publicly the $6500 minimum guaranteed\nwelfare payment for a family of four, yet instructed his delegates to\nvote against this measure in the platform fight on Tuesday night and\nearly Wednesday morning.\nHe continued to say through his aides that he was not instructing\nhis delegates on how to vote on platform issues. Yet Dan Schoor\nof CBS News made public a secret McGovern staff memo which showed\nthe party line on all the platform positions -- including instructing his\ndelegates that he would not want the minority plank provisions on\nabortion and homosexuality among other things. Why did his lieutenants\ncontinue to say in public that he would not instruct his delegates'\nPage 2\n-- On abortion, Shirley MacLaine his \"spokesperson\" spoke in\nfavor of the McGovern position -- i.e., not to adopt the minority\nposition -- on the grounds that this would jeopardize McGovern's\nchances in the fall -- yet she voted for the minority position (only\nafter she knew it would not prevail on the floor). This is the very\nkind of expediency he said he would not pursue in his quest for the\nPresidency.\nSUGGESTED LINE:\nSpare the country all this pious talk about being \"right from the\nstart, \" about being consistent, candid and open. McGovern's\nshuttling back and forth on the issues at Miami Beach was one of\nthe most ambidextrous and opportunistic political performances of the\npast decade.\ncc: Jeb Magruder\nbcc; Pat Buchanan\nMcCovern: Right fro the\nclark Mac oregor\n7/12/72\nFOR:\nNAN\nPAT Buchanan\nFROM: KEN KHACHIGIAN\nyour\nyour\nFor MacGregors speech tomorrow and for his\nperformance on Issues and Answers, we have\nthe opportunity\nto get across an important line regarding the Dem convetion.\nThe line is the amazing political expediency that McGovern\nstooped to to get his way at the convention -- the compromises\nhe made which went counter to his record as the man you\ncan trust. Some of the examples which follow should be\ncompared with his position that he wouldn't compromise\nnever\nhis fundamental principles and that he would\nadvocate\na course in priavote that he was too embarrassed to pursue\nin public. I.e.,\nspare us the hypocrisy and the\ngoody-goody\nrhetoric about being a man you\ncan trust.\n-- He shafted the women in the South Carolina\ndelegate\nC\nvote. He told the National Women's Solitical Causus that he\nwoul support their position on the credentials fight, then\nhe\nturned around and let the gals go down the drain in\norder to preserve\nhis hide on the California challenge.\nNo one begrudges his desiere to save his\npolitical\nfuture, but\nwhy did he lie to the\ncaucus?\nFor months he has taken the posotion that he\nwould get out lock, stock and barrel\nof Vietnam\nand\npage 2\ngo on the guist good graces of the North Vietnamese to get\nour POW's back.\nYesterday, after meeting with the\nPOWS\nwives and geetting their support, he said he would\nleave a residual force in Thailand and off the SVN coast\nin order to make sure we get our POW's back. Just where\ndoes he stand?\n--- He has endorsed publicly the $6500 minimum\nguaranteed welfare payment for a family of four,\nyet instructed his delegates to vote against this measure\nin the platform fight on Tuesday night and early\nWednesday morning.\n-- He continued to say through his aides that\nhe was not insturcting his delegateas on how to\nvote on platform issues. Yet Dan\nSchoor of CBS News\nmade public a secret McGovern staff memo which showed the\nparty\nline on all the platfoom positions -- including\ninsgructing them that he would not want the minority plank\nhis delegates\nprovisions on abortion and homosexuality among other things.\nhis bentenants\nthat\nWhy did\ncontinue to say in public he would not\ninstruct\nhis delegates?\n-- On abortion, Shirley MaciLaine his\"spokesperson\"\nspoke in favor of the McGovern position -- i.e., not to\nadopt the minoirty position -- on the grounds that this would\njeopardize McGovern's chances in the fall -- yet she £ voted\nin\nXXM for the minoirty positonax (only after she knew it would\npq ga 3\nnot prevail on the floorx. This is the very kind of\nexpediency he said\nhe would\nnot pursue in his quest\nfor the Presidency.\nSuggested lines\nSpare the country all this pious talk about being \"right\nfrom the start,\" aboud being consistent,\ncandid and open. McGovern's shuttling back and forth on\nthe issues at Miami Bbach was one of the most **** ambidextrous\n(sp?)\nand opportunistic political performances of the past decade.\nJuly 12, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCLARK MACGREGOR\nFROM:\nPAT BUCHANAN\nKEN KHACHIGIAN\nFor your speech tomorrow and for your performance on Issues\nand Answers, we have the opportunity to get across an important\nline regarding the Dem convention. The line is the amazing\npolitical expediency and opportunism that McGovern stooped to\nto get his way at the convention -- the compromises he made which\nwent counter to his record as the man you can trust. Some of the\nexamples which follow should be compared with his position that\nhe wouldn't compromise his fundamental principles and that he\nwould never advocate a course in private that he was too embarrassed\nto pursue in public. I. spare us the hypocrisy and the goody-goody\nrhetoric about being a man you can trust.\nHe shafted the women in the South Carolina delegate vote.\nHe told the National Women's Political Caucus that he would support\ntheir position on the credentials fight, then he turned around and let\nthe gals go down the drain in order to perserve his hide on the\nCalifornia challenge. No one begrudges his desire to save his\npolitical future, but why did he lie to the caucus?\nFor months he has taken the position that he would get out of Vietnam\nlock, stock, and barrel and go on the good graces of the North Vietnam-\nese to get our POW's back. Yesterday, after meeting with the POW\nwives and getting their support, he said he would leave a residual force\nin Thailand and off the SVN coast in order to make sure we get our\nPOW's back. Just where does he stand?\nHe has endorsed publicly the $6500 minimum guaranteed\nwelfare payment for a family of four, yet instructed his delegates to\nvote against this measure in the platform fight on Tuesday night and\nearly Wednesday morning.\n-- He continued to say through his aides that he was not instructing\nhis delegates on how to vote on platform issues. Yet Dan Schoor\nof CBS News made public a secret McGovern staff memo which showed\nthe party line on all the platform positions -- including instructing his\ndelegates that he would not want the minority plank provisions on\nabortion and homosexuality among other things. Why did his lieutenants\ncontinue to say in public that he would not instruct his delegates?\nPage 2\n-- On abortion, Shirley MacLaine his \"spokesperson\" spoke in\nfavor of the McGovern position -- i. e., not to adopt the minority\nposition -- - - on the grounds that this would jeopardize McGovern's\nchances in the fall -- yet she voted for the minority position (only\nafter she knew it would not prevail on the floor). This is the very\nkind of expediency he said he would not pursue in his quest for the\nPresidency.\nSUGGESTED LINE:\nSpare the country all this pious talk about being \"right from the\nstart, \" about being consistent, candid and open. McGovern's\nshuttling back and forth on the issues at Miami Beach was one of\nthe most ambidextrous and opportunistic political performances of the\npast decade.\ncc: Jeb Magruder\nbcc; Pat Buchanan\nJuly 12, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nCLARK MACGREGOR\nFROM:\nPAT BUCHANAN\nKEN KHACHIGIAN\nFor your speech tomorrow and for your performance on Issues\nand Answers, we have the opportunity to get across an important\nline regarding the Dem convention. The line is the amazing\npolitical expediency and opportunism that McGovern stooped to\nto get his way at the convention -- the compromises he made which\nwent counter to his record as the man you can trust. Some of the\nexamples which follow should be compared with his position that\nhe wouldn't compromise his fundamental principles and that he\nwould never advocate a course in private that he was too embarrassed\nto pursue in public. I. spare us the hypocrisy and the goody-goody\nrhetoric about being a man you can trust.\nHe shafted the women in the South Carolina delegate vote.\nHe told the National Women's Political Caucus that he would support\ntheir position on the credentials fight, then he turned around and let\nthe gals go down the drain in order to perserve his hide on the\nCalifornia challenge. No one begrudges his desire to save his\npolitical future, but why did he lie to the caucus?\nFor months he has taken the position that he would get out of Vietnam\nlock, stock, and barrel and go on the good graces of the North Vietnam-\nese to get our POW's back. Yesterday, after meeting with the POW\nwives and getting their support, he said he would leave a residual force\nin Thailand and off the SVN coast in order to make sure we get our\nPOW's back. Just where does he stand?\nHe has endorsed publicly the $6500 minimum guaranteed\nwelfare payment for a family of four, yet instructed his delegates to\nvote against this measure in the platform fight on Tuesday night and\nearly Wednesday morning.\nHe continued to say through his aides that he was not instructing\nhis delegates on how to vote on platform issues. Yet Dan Schoor\nof CBS News made public a secret McGovern staff memo which showed\nthe party line on all the platform positions -- including instructing his\ndelegates that he would not want the minority plank provisions on\nabortion and homosexuality among other things. Why did. his lieutenants\ncontinue to say in public that he would not instruct his delegates\nPage 2\n-- On abortion, Shirley MacLaine his \"spokesperson\" spoke in\nfavor of the McGovern position -- i.e., not to adopt the minority\nposition -- on the grounds that this would jeopardize McGovern's\nchances in the fall -- yet she voted for the minority position (only\nafter she knew it would not prevail on the floor). This is the very\nkind of expediency he said he would not pursue in his quest for the\nPresidency.\nSUGGESTED LINE:\nSpare the country all this pious talk about being \"right from the\nstart, \" about being consistent, candid and open. McGovern's\nshuttling back and forth on the issues at Miami Beach was one of\nthe most ambidextrous and opportunistic political performances of the\npast decade.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 11, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR: PAT BUCHANAN\nFROM:\nKEN KHACHIGIAN D\nYou may have missed this letter to the editor from Israel --\nit's enough to put McGovern away for awhile with the Jewish vote.\nSuggest that it be gotten over to 1701 with orders that it be\nmailed out to all our Jewish fundraising people. It should receive\nwide attention along with that Israeli editorial of a few days back and\nthe comments by Ambassador Rabin.\nI'm not sure people understand that we have to start now and\ncontinue hitting hard on this Israeli proposition in order that we\nchange voter sentiment on the issue safely in advance of the election.\nAttachment\n7/11/72\nMEMORANDUM FOR BUCHANAN\nFROM: KHACHIGIAN\nYou may have miss missed this letter to the editor\nfrom Israelx -- * it's enough to put McGovern away for\nawhile with the Jewish vote.\nSuggest that it X be gotten over to 1701 with\norders that it be mail mailedamk out to all our Jewish\nfundraising people. It should receive wide attention\nalong with that Israwli editorial of a few days back and\nthe comments by R Ambassador Rabin.\nI'm not sure people understand that we have to\nstart now and ********** continue hitting hard on this\nIsraeli proposition in order that we X change paxe MEHX\nMERK voter sentiment on the issue safely in advance of\nthe election.\nP.\nkeep right letter\nLew Dur K. files.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGION\nJuly 7, 1972\nMEMORANM FOR:\nPAT BUCCA EN\nFROM:\nKEN KHACIIGIAN\nKevin Phillips should be able to use the attached to\ncontinue his current theme that McGovern represent the\nDemocratic only clite rather than the \"common man. 11\nHere's the approac\nThe photo appea ng in the Post amounted to a round-\ntable of Camelot the same Eastern Establishment liberals\nw1.o got us into Victnam. Townsend Hoopes and Paul Warnke\nwere both prominently mentioned in the Pentagen Papers, and\nso, probably, was Abe Chayes, the Kennedy legal advisor at the\nState Department. More: ver, all the others were part of the\nKennedy-Johnson team in one way or ano: or the ones who\ngave us till disasterous foreign policy of the 60's. In my\nopinion, the fact that McGovern is calling on these guys for\nadvice is a damining indictment of his potential foreign policy.\nMoreover, a look at the photo will show that the only\nwomen is a secretary. No blacks, chicanos, poor people, etc.\nMcGovern makes a big thing about representing the \"people\"\nand that he will bring them into his cabinet. But, in fact,\nhe still calls on the elite for his advice.\nI think there is a good potential column along these lines.\n7/7/72\nMEMORANDUM FOR PAT BUCHANAN\nFROM: KEN KHACHIGIAN\nKeven Phillips should be able to use the attached\ncurrent theme\nto continue his that McGovern represents the Democratic\nparty elite rather than the \"comman man.\" Here's the\napproach.\nThe photo appearing in the Post amounted to a\nrougdtable of Camelot -- the same Eastern Establishment\nTownsend\nliberals who got us into Vietnam.\nHoopes\nand\nPaul Warnke were both prominently mentioned in the Pentagon\nKennedy\nPapers, and so, probably, was Abe Chayes, the 1 legal\nadvisor at the State Department. Moreover, all the others\nwere part of the Kennedy-Johssson\nteam in one way or\nthe ones who\nanother\ngave us the disasterous foreign policy of\nthe 60's. In my opinion, the fact that McGovern is calling\non these guys for advice is a damning indictment of his\npotential foreign policy.\nMoreover, a look at the photo\nwill\nshow that\nthe only women\nis a secretary. No blacks, chicanos,\npoor people, etc. McGovern makes a big thing about representing\nthe \"people\" and that he will bring them into his cabinet.\nBut in fact,\nhe still calls on the elite for his advice.\npotential\nI think there is a good column along these lines.\nChron\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 17, 1972\nADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\nMEMORANDUM FOR:\nJOHN DEAN\nVa\nFROM:\nKEN KHACHIGIAN\nWe have a potential problem that we may be faced with in the\nfall and need to get an opinion before the fur starts flying.\nThere is a great deal of valuable videotape footage on the\nnetworks which would be useful for us to use in ads. E.g., the\nCalifornia debates where HHH beat McGovern over the head on\nthe issues and some of the interview shows where Wilbur Mills,\nScoop Jackson and others have been pounding away at McG.\nObviously, it would help us to be able to use these to prove that\nMcGovern is not liked even by his own party.\nHowever, as you know, these materials (though we have them\non tape) are the property of the networks, and it is my understanding\nthat copyright laws stand in the way of their use. Moreover, it is\nalso my understanding that the networks will not give permission\nfor use of these tapes to one candidate to use against another candidate.\nLet me pose some questions and fact situations along these\nlines:\nSuppose we ran an ad in October which used footage from\n\"Meet the Press\" -- showing Scoop Jackson attacking McGovern.\nSuppose, also, that we did not credit the tape to the network. What\nwould be the possible consequences? Keep in mind that we are goi ng\nto have 1701 make these tapes and not drag Signal Corps into the\nprocess.\nWhat happens if we run the ad and at the bottom say: \"NBC film - -\nMeet the Press?\" Is the network likely to be less apt to take legal\naction against the Re-Elect committee?\nPage 2\nAssume the ad runs with the credit line at the bottom and\nNBC seeks legal action. Would an injunction be their first act?\nIf they seek an injunction, and we comply, and let's say the ad\nran only two or three times nationally, would the network be in\na position to seek damages, and if so what would the amounts\npossibly be?\nGenerally, do you see the problems as being so insur -\nmountable as to militate against any use of network tapes in the\nfashion I suggest? Consider these points. Let's say they seek\nan injunction, and we say: \"O.K., we will pull it off the air, and\nregret using your tape. But we don't see how anyone can be angry\nabout using someone's public statements. We felt that Meet the\nPress was an excellent source of information and we used it. 11\nOf course, if there is a public outburst on this, it only draws more\nattention to the ad itself -- to our benefit I believe.\nI am least concerned about the injunction. It wouldn't be so\nbad moreover, I am not sure the networks would be all that\nupset over the free advertisement of their interview shows. But\nI would be concerned about monetary damages, and it is in this\narea where I would think we might want to focus.\nObviously no action will be or would be taken until we have\nsome idea about how to proceed.\ncc: Fred Fielding\nPat Buchanan\nADM\nINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL\n7/17/72\nMEMORANDUM FOR JOHN DEAN\nFROM: KEN KHECHIGIAN\nWe\nHave a\npotential problem that we may be face\nwith\nin the\nfall and need to get an opinion before the fur\nstarts flying.\nThere is a great deal of valuable videotape footage\non the networks which would be useful for us to use in\nads. E.g., the California debates where HHH beat McGovern\nover the head on the issues and some of the interveiw\nshows whe re Wilbur Mills, Scoop Jackson and others\nhave\nbeen pounding away at MCG. Obviously, it would\nhelp\nus to be able to use these to prove that McGovern is\npoor candidate liked even by his own party.\nHowever, as youknow, these materials (though we have\nthem\non tape) are the property of the\nnetworks, and\nit is my understadhing that copyright laws stand in the\nway of their use. Moreover, it\nis also my understanding\nthat the\nnetweorks will not\ngive permission for\nuse of these tapes to\nCandidate to use against another\ncandidate.\nLet me pose some questions and fact situations along\nthese lines:\nSuppose we ran an ad in October which used footage from\n\"Meet the Press\"\n--\nshowing Scoop Jackson attacking McGovern.\nRage 2\nSuppose , also, that we did not credit the tape to the\nnetwork.\nWhat would be the possible consequences? Keep\nin mind that we are going to have 1701 make these tapes\nand not drag signal corps into the process.\nWhat happens if we run the ad and at the bottom say:\n\"NBC film Meet the Presse?\" Is the network likely\nto be\napt to take legal action against the\nRe-Elect committee?\nAssume the ad runs\nwith the\ncredit\nline at the bottom and NBC seeks\nlegal action.\nWould an injuntion be their first act? If they seek an\ninjunction, and we comply and let's say the\nad ran\nonly two or three times nationally, would the network be\nin a postion to seek damages, and if so what would the\namounts possibly be?\nGenerally, do you see the problems as being so insur-\nmountable as to militate against any use of network tapes\nin the fashion I suggest. Consider these points. Let's say\nthey seek an injunction, and we say: \"O.K., we will pull\nit off the\nair, and regret using\ntape. But we\ndon't see how anyone can be angry about using someone\nWe felt that Meet the Press was an excellent source of\ninformation and we used it.\" Of course, if there is a\npublic outburst on this, it only drawss more attention\nDO the ad itself -- to our benefit I believe.\npage 3\nI am least concerned about the injunction. It wouldn't\nbe so bad -- moreover, I am not sure the networks would\nme\nbe all that upset over the feee adverties nt of their\ninterview shows. But I would be concerned about\nmonetary damages, and it is in\nthis area where I\nwould think we\nmight want to focus.\nObviously no action will be or would be taken until\nwe have some idea about how to proceed.\nCC: Fred Fieldis\nPat Buchanan"
}