Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
From Khachigian to Buchanan RE: attack stragegy. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/12/1972
Statement for D.C. Blacks Visiting Shriver Family Home. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 9/9/1972
Statement (author unk) for Frank Fitzsimmons. 7 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 9/7/1972
Fact Sheet RE: 'Another Look at George McGovern's Foreign Policy.' 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 9/6/1972
Draft (author unk) of Fact Sheet RE: another look at McGovern's Foreign Policy. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
From Khachigian to Colson RE: 'guy from Bethlehem Steel.' 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/5/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146466
label
WHSF: Contested, 47-41
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146466
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 47-41
description
This file contains:
From Khachigian to Buchanan RE: attack stragegy. 10 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/12/1972
Statement for D.C. Blacks Visiting Shriver Family Home. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 9/9/1972
Statement (author unk) for Frank Fitzsimmons. 7 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], 9/7/1972
Fact Sheet RE: 'Another Look at George McGovern's Foreign Policy.' 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 9/6/1972
Draft (author unk) of Fact Sheet RE: another look at McGovern's Foreign Policy. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Other Document], no date
From Khachigian to Colson RE: 'guy from Bethlehem Steel.' 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/5/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146466
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
2855eda7f0355524
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
47
41
9/12/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Khachigian to Buchanan RE: attack
stragegy. 10 pgs.
47
41
9/9/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Statement for D.C. Blacks Visiting Shriver
Family Home. 4 pgs.
47
41
9/7/1972
Campaign
Other Document
Statement (author unk) for Frank
Fitzsimmons. 7 pgs.
47
41
9/6/1972
Campaign
Report
Fact Sheet RE: 'Another Look at George
McGovern's Foreign Policy.' 2 pgs.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Page 1 of 2
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
47
41
Campaign
Other Document
Draft (author unk) of Fact Sheet RE: another
look at McGovern's Foreign Policy. 2 pgs.
47
41
9/5/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Khachigian to Colson RE: 'guy from
Bethlehem Steel.' 2 pgs.
Tuesday, April 14, 2015
Page 2 of 2
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
TYPE
N-1
Mimo
phachisian to Bucharan re: attack
9/12/72
claim
[Doc 1]
strategy, with attached diaft
copy
N-2
Repart
Statement for D.C. Black visiting
9/9/72
C ( (mix)
[Doc 2]
thriver Jamily stome, with
attached draft copy
N-3
Regiant
[Doc 3]
statement for I rank Fetzsimmons, 9/7/72
with 2 diaft copies attached
N-4
Report
Fact sheet another Look at
9/6/72
[DOC 4]
Heorge me Govern's Jareyn
c(mip)
Palicy
N-5
Regart
Draft
,Copy of N-4
[9/6/72]
[DOC 173]
("(nipn)
N-C
Memo
Hhochigian to Failor, Als: me Jovens
[Doc 5]
defense expenditures job market,
9/5/72
c cont)
with attached diaft copy
N-7
memo
Herochision to Colson, re: guy
[Doc6]
from Bittlehem steel, with
9/5/72
C (mix)
attached draft copy
N-8
Letter
TO members of me tovin Foreign
offairs admising Committee, with
9/5/72
[Doc 7]
N-9
memor
Copy to diaft copy
Khach-jian atc colson, it. thrinest
9/1/72
[Doc 8]
amer in It rist, with draft copy
(cinfo)
Eatlachments
[Doc 9]
memo, Colson to Buchan, re: Shiver+
FILE GROUP TITLE
america First, 8/25/72
BOX NUMBER
KEN KHACHIGAN
7
FOLDER TITLE
September 11972] [20/2]
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercial or
B. National security classified information.
financial information.
C. Pending or approved claim that release would violate an individual's
F. Release would disclose investigatory information compiled for law
rights.
enforcement purposes.
). Release would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy
G. Withdrawn and return private and personal material.
or a libel of a living person.
H. Withdrawn and returned non-historical material.
IATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection:
Kenneth L. Khachigian
Box Number:
7
Folder:
September [1972] [2 of 2]
Document
Disposition
1
Return Private/Political
2
Return
Private/Political
3
Return Private/Political
4
Return
Private/Political
5
Retain
Open
6
Return
Private/Political
7
Retain
Open
8
Retain
Open
9
Retain
Open
173
Return
Private/Political
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 12, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM:
KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
SUBJECT:
ATTACK STRATEGY
If we seem to be flailing about while George McGovern appears
to score political points against us, it's true. While we shouldn't
overestimate the amount of political bulls-eyes McGovern has
scored in the past 10 days, we should consider just what we need
to do in the next eight weeks to prevent him from scoring too many
more.
The first problem is that we are generally on the counterattack
against issues which McGovern raises first, and he has raised
those issues because they are his issues. There are two approaches
here: (1) There are some things we have to answer -- I think by
and large, the Butz response on the grain deal has been o.k. We
can't let McGovern get away with totally irresponsible charges and
to put McGovern into a spitting contest with Butz is o.k. by me.
That gets him off other issues. (2) However, there are some issues
we just don't need to answer, and we shouldn't. We should never
counterattack unless we can turn the counterattack into an offensive
plus for us.
TIMING
We are presently spreading ourselves too thin. We have shoved
out statements over the last few days like they were going out of style.
On occasion, we get in the way of our own stories. This is bad pre-
cedent and should be stopped. We need to focus on big issues or big
stories. One story per day is sufficient.
Page 2
Our sense of timing goes right along with spreading ourselves
too thin. For example, the Chayes thing has gotten us nowhere
in 8 days. One of the most remarkable stories to come down, and
we can't do anything with it. Here is also where the problem of doing
too much comes in. We moved on the Chayes story, and then the
next day we picked up with something else -- losing the urgency of the
Chayes story and thus losing the story. I am not sure we can resurrect
it.
SPOKESMEN
While McGovern is making news every day because he is on the
road, we have, in the last week or so, tried to counterattack using
low-level spokesmen. This is not to criticize Dole, MacGregor
and some of the Cabinet types; it is a simple matter of who gets
news space in the media. Some do and some don't. Dole is spread
so thin he is not likely to make national news very often. MacGregor
can make national news, but they seem to call press conferences
only to harp on the Watergate thing.
Fundamentally, the problem with our attack is a problem of using
newsmakers to make news on some of our best and biggest issues.
For example, while we have been piddling around with a number
of things, we aren't moving out such lines as the quote on J. Edgar
Hoover's death. We are not moving out his irresponsible and smear
rhetoric. We aren't moving out some of the more egregious examples
of how McGovern is flim-flamming the voters and the Democratic
party. There are no limits on these.
Thus, we need, in the next three weeks and before, to have our
national spokesmen, every three or four days, move with a new
major speech knocking hell out of McGovern, and just as he begins
to get one charge answered, we come at him again with another charge.
Connally, Laird, Rockefeller, Reagan, Rogers and the Veep are those
who come to mind. We should use Rogers and Laird sparingly but
they should be used -- so what if partisanship is charged? It was
charged three weeks ago and we jumped like hell in the polls. It is
a meaningless charge in political Washington. The only reason they
should be used sparingly on a national level is to maintain their
newsworthiness.
Page 3
ISSUES
The issues we use are wrapped right into everything else
I have mentioned above. Now, it is my understanding that 1701
wants to focus on four big issues. That's a lot of nonsense. There
are probably about 50 issues in this campaign. For the President
there are only about three or four issues, but for surrogates and
attack spokesmen, there are dozens of issues. McGovern's record
is rife with the wreckage of wild and irresponsible statements.
Why should we limit ourselves on what we want to tie around his
neck? Sure, we can focus on some gut issues the purpose of which
is to coincide with voter attitudes. But we have another purpose as
well: to engender the general opinion that this guy is a far-out,
out-of-the-mainstream candidate whose elevation to the Presidency
would be at worst a disaster and at best an embarrassment. We
can do this without being strident.
If we don't start on some of these issues as soon as possible, we
are going to be out of time and open to the charge of last-minute
desperation tactics. For example, I have been urging for six weeks
that a major figure in the Republican ranks has got to pick a good
forum and lay out, point by point, the McGovern rhetoric, the appeal
to fear, the smear tactics, the divisiveness, etc. I would guess that
within ten days, McGovern will be touring the country saying he is
going to heal the nation while Nixon divides. He is just dying to set
the stage for another tricky-Dick campaign. It seems to me that we
need to beat him to the punch, and one way of doing it is to move out
the McGovern rhetoric.
One other thing we need to start doing in the same vein. As of
now, we write something up, such as, "McGovern's not credible, 11
and expect people to swallow it. What needs to be done is to launch
this issue with a major speech, given all the P.R. support of 1701,
laying out in agonizing detail just why McGovern isn't credible. Then
we can follow up in the next four to five days with all kinds of short
statements. We have to lay the foundation for an issue before we can
make any headway with it.
This is why I emphasize the need to move out issues with big name
speakers and a lot of fanfare. Then it becomes easy to have the other
spokesmen just keep hammering away after the stage has been set.
Page 4
Frankly, I feel my time is wasted producing so-called
"talking points" which have about as much impact as a raindrop
in a sandstorm. We should direct our efforts and direct them
wisely. As of now we are using the blunderbuss in preference to the
rifle shot, and it doesn't seem to be working.
PLANNING FOR THE NEXT EIGHT WEEKS
First of all, if we are to follow Eisenhower's advice, let's
not even listen to anybody who puts out a set plan which is to be
followed for one week and then the next. Let's use our political
senses to see how the winds are going and then engage in planning.
We should not get locked into anything. Things will change as
time goes and we want to keep our own strategy updated according
to changing events.
Neverthetheless, we still want to be able to control the
political events as much as possible. That is why we should begin
thinking about who is going to say what for the next few days and
when we are going to unleash some of our big guns. Remember,
when RN gets on the stump in four weeks, everything else will be
submerged, so if we want to make certain points now that we don't
think RN can make later, we have to get started.
These are just some general thoughts. I can provide specifics
along some of these lines if necessary. Why don't we get together
to talk out some of this stuff before we submit a final memo for
decision by higher-ups.
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
9/12/72
MEORANDUM FOR PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
ATTACK
SUBEECT
'STRATEGY
If we seem to be
flailing about while George
McGovern
appears to score political points against us,
it's true.
Michal
While we shouldn't overestimate the
amount of poliitcal bulls-eyes McGovern has scored
in the past 10 days, we should consider just what we
need to do in the next eight weeks to prevent him from
scoring you many more.
The first problem is that we are generally on the
counterattack against issues which McGovern raises first,
and
he has raised those issues because they are
his issues. There are two approaches here: (1) There
are smme things we have to answer -- I think by and large,
the Butz response on the grain deal has been o.k. We can't
let Mc G overn get away with totally irresponsible charges and
to put McGovern into a spitting contest with Butz is o.k. by
me. That gets him off other issues. (2) However, there are
some.
issues we just don't need to answer, and
we shouldn't. We should never coubterattack unless we can
turn the counterattack into an offensive plus for us.
TIMING
We are presently XX spreading ourselves too EXA thin.
We have shoved out statements over the last few days like they
page 2
were going out of style. On occasion, we get in the
way of our own stories. This is bad precedent and
should be stopped. We need to focus on big issues or big
stories.
ONe story per day is sufficient
Our sense of timing goes right along with spreading
ourselves too thing For example, the Chayes thing has
gotten us nowhere in 8 days. One of the most remarkable
stories to come down, and we can't do anything with it.
Here is also
where the problem of doing too much comes
in. We moved on the Chayes story, and then the next day
we picked up with
something else
losing the
urgency of the Chayes story and thus losing the story.
(sp:)
I am not sure we can resurrect it.
SPOKESMEN
While McGovern is making news every day because he
is on the road, we hafe, in the last week or
so,
tried to counteral Ha ack using low-level
spokesmen.
This is not to
criticize Dole, MacGregoor and some
of the Cabinet types; it is a simple matter of who
gets news space in the media. Some do and some
don't. Dole is MAKE speead so thin he is not likely
to make sational news MacGregor can make national news,
harpon
but they seem to call press conferences only to resourect (sps)
the Watergate thing.
page 83
Fundamentally, the problem with our attack is a problem
of using MY newsmake: to make news on some of our best
and biggest issues.
For example, while we have been piddling around
with a number of things, we are't moving out such lines
not
as the quote on J. Edgar Hoover's death. We are d moving
out
his
irresponsible and smear rhetoric. We are't
-
moving out
NEW
some of the more egregious examples of
how McGovern is flim-flmamming the voters and the
There are no limits and these.
Democratic party. I could stary draw up 10 different speeches
with 10 different
themes
each of which move out
the line we want moved out instead of the line McGovern
is determinging
Thus, we need, into the next three weeks and before
to have our national spokesmen every three or four days
move with a new major speech knocking hell out of
Manager
McGovern, and just as he begins to get one charge answered,
we come at
Thim
mydex
again with another charge. Connally,
Laird, Rockefeller, Reagan, Rogers and the Veep are those
who come to mind. We should use Rogers and Laird sparingly
but they should be used -- so what if partisanship is charged
?
it was charged three weeks ago and we
MEP
jumped like hell in
the
The
polls. It is a meaningless charge in political
Washington. The only reason they should be used sparingly xx
page 4
on a national level is to maintain their newsworthiness.
ISSUES
The issues we use are wrapped right
finth
everything
elee I have mentioned above. Now, it is my understanding
that 1701 wants to focus on four big issues. That's a lot
of nonsense. There are premisty probably about 50 issues
in this campaign. For the President there are only about
three or four issues, but for surrogates and
attack
spokesmen, there are dozens of issues. McGovern's record
is rife with the
wreckage of wild and ireesponsbble
statements. Why should we limit ourselves on what we want
to tie around his
neck? Sure, we can focus on some
gut issues
which
the purpose of which is to
coincide with voter attitudes. But we have - another
purpose as well: to engender the general opinion that
this guy is a far-out, out-of-the-mainstream candidate
t
whose elevation to the Presidency would be a worst a disaster
and at best an
embarrassment (sp?) We can do this without
being student.
If we don't start on some of these issees as soon
as possible, we are going to be out of time and open to
the charge of last-minute desparation tactics For example,
I have been urging for six weeks that a major figure in
the Republican rank has your got to pick a good forum
and lay out, point by point, the McGovern rhetoric, the
appeal to fear, the smear tactics, the divisiveness, etc.
page 5
within
I would guess that
M.
about
ten days, McGovern
will
be touring the country saying khe is going to heal the nation
while Nixon divides. He is just dying to set the stage for
S
another tricky-Dick campaign. It seems to me that
we need to beat
him to the punch, and one
way of
doing it is to move out the McGovern rhetoric.
One
other thing we need to start doing in
the same vein. As of Now, we write something up, such as,
"McGovern'st not credible, " and expect people to swallow
this
it. What needs to be done is to launch
issue
with
a majr speech, given all the P.R. support of 1701, laying
out in
agonizing detail just why McGovern isn't credible.
Then we can follow up in the next four to five days with
all
knx x kinds of short statements. We have to lay the
foundation for an issue before we can make any headway with it.
This
is why I emphasize the need to move out
issues with
big name speakers and
bot of fanfare.
Then it becomes easy to have the other spokesmen just keep
hammering away after the stage has bean set.
Frankly, I feel my time is wasted producing so-called
"talking points" which have about as much impact as a
rain teardrop in a sandstorm. We should direct our efforts and
direct them wisely. As of now we are using the
(sp?)
ence
blunderbuss in preference to the rifle shot, and it
doesn't
seem to be working.
page 6
PLANNIGN FOR THE NEXT EIGHT WEEKS
First of all, if we are to follow Eisenhower advice,
let's not even
listen to anybody who puts out a
set plan which is to be followed for one week and then
the next. Let's use our political senses to see how
the
winds are going and then engage in planning. We
should not get locked into anything. Things
will change
as time goles and we want to keep our own strategy
updated according to changing events.
Nevertheless, we still want to be able to control
the political events as much as possible. That is why
we
should begin thinking about who is going to say what
for the next few days and when we are going to unleash
some of our big guns.
Remember, when RN getson
the
Stump trail in four weeks, everybhing else will be submerged,
so if we want to make sertain points now that we don't
think RN can make later, we have to get started.
These are just some general thoughts. I can provide
specifica along some of these lines if necessary. Why don't
we get together to talk out some of this stuff before we
submit a final memo for
decision by higher-ups.
September 9, 1972
STATEMENT FOR D.C. BLACKS VISITING SHRIVER FAMILY HOME
We came here to visit the Shriver family home today to take
a first hand look at Sargent Shriver's commitment to racial
equality. What we have discovered should be of great interest
to black people across this country.
It turns out that Mr. Shriver comes from a family of
slaveholders in Maryland whose success in America came from
the forced labor of black slaves. We first read about this in the
Washington Post, but we had to see it to believe it. The Post
said of Mr. Shriver's ancestors: "It was a life of luxury, for the
Shrivers, if not American aristocrats, were country gentlemen
and ladies. "
One of the things here we saw at the Shriver home was the
kitchen, and in that kitchen are a series of bells that were used to
summon the slaves and indentured servants. Also of great interest
on our sightseeing trip was one of the mementos on the walls. There
is a handbill printed in 1809 by David Shriver which offered the
sum of $30 for the return of a runaway slave.
What concerns us most is the fact that Mr. Shriver is apparently
proud of his slaveholding ancestry. Mr. Shriver visited the deep
South on August 23 and speaking in Louisiana, Sargent Shriver boasted
Page 2
that of eight forebears of military age during the Civil War,
six had served on Dixie's side and two had stayed home. And
here are Mr. Shriver's own words: "but none of them fought on
the other side (meaning the North). 11
Now, we just put two and two together. Shriver goes to the
South and brags about his ancestors who fought against freedom
for blacks and then we come here to his family home and find that
there is ample evidence of his slaveholding past. And today, of
course, Mr. Shriver himself lives an aristocratic life, and we
only wonder whether he is proud that his wealth today was the
direct product of the sweat and toil of slaves against whose
freedom he proudly notes his family fought against.
9/9/72
STATEMENT FOR D.C. BLACKS VISITING SHRIVER FAMILY HOME
We came here to visit the Shriver family home today
to take a first hand look at Sargent Shriver's commitment
to racial equality. What we have discovered should be
of great interest to Black people acress this country.
It turns out that Mr. Shriver comes from a family
of slaveholdrs in Maryland whose success in America came
of
from the forced labor Black slaves. We first read about
this in the Washington Post, but we had to see it to believe
it. The Post said of Mr. Shrivern S ancestors: "It was
a life of
luxury, for the Shrivers
if not American
aristocrats, were country
gentlement and ladies. "
One of the things here we saw at the Shriver home
was
kitchen, and in that kitchen are a series of
bells that were used to summon the slaves and indentured
servants. Also of great interest on our sightseeing trip
was one of the mementos on the walls. There is a
handbill printed in
1809 by David Shriver which offered
the sum of $30 for the return of a runaway slave.
What concerns us most is the fact that Mr. Shriver
is apparently proud of his slaveholding ancestry. Mr.
Shriver visited the deep South on
Agreek
August 23 and
speaking in Louisiana, Sargent Shriver boasted that of
eight forebears of military age
during the Civil
War,
six had served on Dixie's side and two had stayed home.
page 2
And here are Mr. Shriver's own words: "but none of them fought
on the other side (meaning the North) . "
Now, we just put
two and two together. Shriver
goes to the South and brags about his ancestors who fought
against freedom for blacks and
then we come here to
his family home and find that there is ample evidence of
his slaveholding
past. And today, of course, Mr. Shriver
himself lives an aristo cratic life, and we only wonder
whether he
is proud that his wealth today was the direct
product of the sweat and toil of slaves against
whose freedom he proudly
notes his family
fought
against.
September 7, 1972
STATEMENT FOR FRANK FITZSIMMONS
Senator George McGovern said this week that "any laboring
man or woman who supports President Nixon ought to have his
head examined. " Being a laboring man this greatly concerned me.
I want to announce today that I just got back from a visit to my
doctor who examined my head, and told me the only thing I have is
McGovernitis. For the layman, that translates into a fear of
higher taxes and social chaos.
If I may be serious for a moment, Senator McGovern's statement
about the working-man required about as much gall as could be
mustered. The real working people of this country are going to
resent such silly statements about "having their head examined. 11
What kind of talk is that? According to a Harris Poll, President
Nixon is receiving 49% of the labor support to McGovern's 40%.
Senator McGovern apparently thinks he knows more about the
working-man than the worker himself.
But let's really look at whose head needs examining. Senator
McGovern voted against the SST in Congress. He voted to put tens
of thousands of people out of work -- people now unemployed because of
the way McGovern voted.
McGovern voted to put all the Lockheed workers out of a job,
and he was barely defeated.
Page 2
McGovern wanted to throw thousands of aerospace workers
out on the streets when he voted against NASA appropriations
year after year -- a minimum of 16 times. Referring to the
very important space shuttle effort McGovern said: "I wouldn't
manufacture foolish projects like the shuttle. 11 He obviously
meant to put thousands of more Americans on the unemployment
rolls.
Not only has he constantly voted the straight unemployment
ticket, George McGovern has proposed a number of silly welfare
schemes and government boondoggles which would raise the budget
by a minimum of $99. 4 billion. This would raise the taxes of the
average American by at least 50%. A vote for George McGovern
is a vote for higher taxes.
Today, George McGovern is public enemy number one of the
American working man. He votes to put us out of work. He
proposes to make America a second-class military power and put
hundreds of thousands of Americans on the unemployment lines
as a result. To top it off, he dreams up hare-brained proposals
that make Santa Claus look like a miser and virtually assures higher and
higher taxes for every American to pay for them.
The American working-man doesn't need his head examined,
Mr. McGovern; all he needs is for you to get off his back.
9/7/72 - draft
Khachigian
STATEMENT FOR ERANK FITZEINMONS
Senator George McGovern said this week that "any laboring
man or woman who supports President Nixon ought to have his
ким head examined. II Now, this startled me somewhat and being
a laboring man this we greatly concerned me.
I want to announce
today that I just got back from a visit to
my doctor
who examined my head, and my dector told me
the only thing I have is McGovernitis. For the layman,
that is translated into a fear of higher taxes and social chaos.
If I may be serious for a moment, Senator McGovern's
statement about the working-man was absolutely chocking be mustered
required about as much gall as could
The real working people of this country are going to
silly
resent such statements about "having their head examined."
What kind of talk is that? gotting 49%
according President toa Nixon is
of the labor august victe to McGovern's 40%. Xx Senator Mc Govern
apparently things he knows
more
about the working-man
**** than the worker himself.
But let's
really look at whose head needs examining.
Senator McGovern voted against the SST
bill in Congrdss.
He voted to put tens of thousands of people out of WH work --
people who are now unemployed because of the way McGovern voted.
McGovern
R/voted to put all the Lockheed workers out of & a job,
and he was barely defeated.
McGovern wanted to throw thousands of aerosapace workers
page 2
out in the streets when he voted against NASA appropriations
a minimum of 16 times
Referring to the
year after year very important space shuttle
effort McGovern said: "I wouldd't manufacture foolish projects
like the shuttle." He MEEXE obviously meants to la put KEN
thousands of more Americans on the unemployment XMMXXX xxxxx
rolls.
Not only has he constantly voted a the straight R unem-
ployment ticket, George McGovern has put up a XM number
of foolish welfare schemes and government knedx boondoggles
WHEX which would raise the budget by a XXXM minimum of $99.4
billion. This would raise the taxes of every American by
at least 50%. vote for Genge mc ' Govern and I guarantee
higher taxes.
Just who does Senator McGovern think he's kidding ? Today,
he is public enemy number one to the working man. He ha
votes to put us out of work. He proposes to make America
a second-class military power and put hundreds of thousands
as a result.
of other Americans XMKX in the R unemployment lines
To
top it off, he whips out a bunch of heax hare-brained
proposals which make Santa 8a Claus look like a piker
and virtually XXXXMM MXXXM assur higher and higher taxes
for every American.
The American working-man doesn't need his bead
examined Mr. McGovern; all he needs from you is some
repsonsible political action so you quit voting men out of
else.
their jobs and EXP proposing the welfare state EXEM for everyone/zxx
9/7/72 - draft
Khachigian
STATEMENT FOR FRANK FITZSIMMONS
Senator George McGovern said this week that "any laboring
man or woman who supports President Nixon ought to have his head
examined.
"
being a laboring man this greatly concerned me.
I want to announce today that I just got back from a visit to my
doctor who examined my head, and told me the only thing I have is
McGovernitis. For the layman, into a fear of
higher taxes and social chaos.
If I may be serious for a moment, Senator McGovern's statement
about the working-man required about as much gall as could be
mustered. The real working people of this country are going to resent
such silly statements about "having their head examined. " What kind
of talk is that? According to a Harris Poll, President Nixon is
receiving 49% of the labor support to McGovern's 40%. Senator
McGovern apparently thinks he knows more about the working-man
than the worker himself.
But let's really look at whose head needs examining. Senator
McGovern voted against the SST
in Congress. He voted to put
tens of thousands of people out of work -- people
now
unemployed be cause of the way McGovern voted.
Page 2
McGovern voted to put all the Lockheed workers out of a job,
and he was barely defeated.
McGovern wanted to throw thousands of aerospace workers
out
the streets when he voted against NASA appropriations year after
year a minimum of 16 times. Referring to the very important
space shuttle effort McGovern said: "I wouldn't manufacture foolish
projects like the shuttle. " He obviously meant to put thousands of
more Americans on the unemployment rolls.
Not only has he constantly voted the straight unemployment
ticket, George McGovern of atty welfare
schemes and government boondoggles which would raise the budget
the average
by a minimum of $99. 4 billion. This would raise the taxes of
American by at least 50%. Vote for George McGovern 6 a vote higher
taxes
Just who does Senator McGovern think he's kidding? Today,
George 60vm
is public enemy number one the ameno working man. He votes to put
us out of work. He proposes to make America a second-class
military power and put hundreds of thousands of
Americans
the unemployment lines as a result. To top it off, he
dream up
hare-brained proposals which make Santa Claus look like
a
miney and virtually assures higher and higher taxes for every American,
To pay for them.
Page 3
The American working-man doesn't need his head examined,
Mr. McGovern; all he needs from baj you is some political
is
to back.
action SO you quit voting men out of their jobs and proposing the
welfare state for everyone else.
FACT SHEET
Another Look at George McGovern's Foreign Policy
Interview with Abram Chayes:
Q. You say you would cut off all military aid to Saigon as soon as
the McGovern Administration takes over. But what if the North
Vietnamese also insist that the United States cease all economic
aid to the South Vietnamese regime before the prisoners are
returned?
A. Well, we'll cut that, too, then. We're not interested in keeping
any presence there at all.
Q. What if Hanoi then insists that we must dump Lon Nol in
Cambodia and Souvanna Phouma in Laos -- releasing, say, 100
American prisoners to sugarcoat the pill?
A. I don't think Hanoi will want Communist regimes in Cambodia
and Laos, at least not right away. But if it does, then we'll have
to dump Lon Nol and Souvanna Phouma, too.
Q. And what happens if Hanoi says we must dismantle all bases in
Thailand before they will release the rest of the prisoners of war?
A. We can live with that, too. After all, Thailand is already
making deals with Peking.
Q. Are you saying that if he is elected, McGovern would be prepared
to abandon not only all of Indochina but the other nations of Southeast
Asia as well?
A. We don't belong there.
Newsweek, September 11, 1972
The above exchange took place between a Newsweek correspondent
in France and the newly appointed chairman of the McGovern foreign
affairs advisory panel, Prof. Abram L. Chayes.
2
Prof. Chayes is the latest McGovern emissary, joining the
ranks of McGovernites Ramsey Clark, Jane Fonda, and Pierre
Salinger, to travel abroad with the message that a McGovern
administration would sacrifice American interests and American
allies around the world and reward Communist ambitions.
Newsweek pointed out that Chayes' appointment suggested the
likelihood of his emergence as the "Henry Kissinger" of a
McGovern administration.
Profe ssor Chayes was directly involved in the making of
foreign policy during the Kennedy years when the Vietnam
adventure was launched. In order to ingratiate himself with
Senator McGovern he has now renounced that role.
Professor Chayes' services on behalf of the McGovern
candidacy have not been restricted to undercutting delicate peace
negotiations by promising North Vietnam everything it asks, and
then some. He has also falsely identified a number of distinguished
American academics as supporters of the McGovern foreign policy
when, in fact, they strongly oppose McGovern and his policies.
Among those whose names were falsely used to perpetrate
this fraud are Prof. Zbigniew Brzezinski of Columbia University,
Prof. Ben Halperin of Brandeis University, Prof. Marie Syrkin
of Brandeis University, Prof. Gil Carl Alroy of Hunter College,
and Prof. Michael Curtis of Rutgers University. Prof. Chayes
was aided in perpetrating the fraud by a millionaire Harvard
professor devoted to radical-left causes, Martin Peretz.
FACT SHEET
fook of George M Correm's Foreign Hig
FACT SHEET
Interview with Abram Chayes:
Q. You say you would cut off all military aid to Saigon as soon as
the McGovern Administration takes over. But what if the North
Vietnamese also insist that the United States cease all economic
aid to the South Vietnamese regime before the prisoners are
returned?
A. Well, we'll cut that, too, then. We're not interested in keeping any
presence there at all.
Q. What if Hanoi then insists that we must dump Lon Nol in
Cambodia and Souvanna Phouma in Laos - releasing, say, 100
American prisoners to sugarcoat the pill?
A. I don't think Hanoi will want Communist regimes in Cambodia
and Laos, at least not right away. But if it does, then we'll have
your
to dump Lon Nol and Souvanna Phouma, too.
Q. And what happens if Hanoi says we must dismantle all bases in
Thailand before they will release the rest of the prisoners of war?
A. We can live with that, too. After all, Thailand is already making
deals with Peking.
Q. Are you saying that if he is elected, McGovern would be prepared
to abandon not only all of Indochina but the other nations of Southeast
Asia as well?
A. We don't belong there.
- - NEWSWEEK, September 11, 1972
The above exchange took place between a Newsweek correspondent in
France and the newly appointed chairman of the McGovern foreign
affairs advisory panel, Prof. Abram L. Chayes.
Prof. Chayes is the latest McGovern emmissery, joining the
ranks of McGovernites Ramsey Clark, Jane Fonda, and Pierre
Salinger, to travel abroad with the message that a McGovern
2
administration WO uld sacrifice American interests and American
allies around the world and reward Communist ambitions.
Newsweek pointed out that Chayes' appointment suggested the
likelihood of his emergence as the Henry Kissinger of a
McGovern administration.
Professor Chayes was directly involved in the making of
foreign policy during the Kennedy years when the Viet-Nam
adventure was launched. In order to ingratiate himself with
Senator McGovern he has now renounced that role.
Professor Chayes' services on behalf of the McGovern
with
undersufting
candidacy have not been restricted to tempering with the delicate
do
(negotiations peace by new promising progressing North in the Vietnam service everything of peace. it asks, He has and also then some.
falsely identified a number of distinguished American academics
as supporters of the McGovern foreign policy when, in fact, they
strongly oppose McGovern and his policies
whose were falsely
Among those names used to perpetrate this fraud are
Prof. Zbi bigniew
Brzezinski of Columbia University, Pro.
Ben Halperin of Brandeis University, Prof. Marie Sy Sykin
of Brandeis University, Prof. Gil Carl Alroy
of Hunter
College, and Prof, Michael Curtis of Rutgers University.
Prof. Chayes was aided in perpetrating this the fraud by a
millionaire Harvard professor devoted to radical-left courses, causes martin
Peretz.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 5, 1972
EMORANDUM FOR: CHUCK COLSON
KEN KHACHIGIAN de
FROM:
The attached seems to be right down your alley. This guy
from Bethlehem Steel can do nothing but help us, as surely all
his complaints are with McGovern's wild statistics. Can't we
nave Henry Cashen plug in with him and make sure he gets
ampie material with which he can attack McGovern.
Since he is setting up his own truth squads, our effort
would be minimal. We ought to give him as much support as
ve can -- he'll be doing our work for us.
stachment
9/2/72
MEMORANDUM FOR CHUCK COLSON
FROM: KEN KHACHGGIAN
The attached seems to be right down your alley.
This guy from Bah Bethlehem Steel can do nothing but help
us, as surely all his complaints are with McGovern's wild
statistics. Can't we have Henry Cashen plug W in with him
and MKHH make sure he gets ample material with which hd he
can attack Mc overn?
Since he is seeting up his own truth squads, our effort
would be minimal. We ought to give him as much support as
we can -- *** he'll be doing our work for us.