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:
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: Gallup Poll released on 07/05 with interview dates prior to Supreme Court ruling showing that 45% of the American public had not heard or read about the Pentagon papers. 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/9/1971
To: The President From: Patrick J. Buchanan RE: "The Odds Against Henry Jackson." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/25/1971
To: The President From: Patrick J. Buchanan RE: "The Veep and The Campaign of 1970." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/24/1970
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146474
label
WHSF: Contested, 48-1
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146474
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 48-1
description
This file contains:
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L. Khachigian RE: Gallup Poll released on 07/05 with interview dates prior to Supreme Court ruling showing that 45% of the American public had not heard or read about the Pentagon papers. 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/9/1971
To: The President From: Patrick J. Buchanan RE: "The Odds Against Henry Jackson." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/25/1971
To: The President From: Patrick J. Buchanan RE: "The Veep and The Campaign of 1970." 4pgs [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 8/24/1970
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146474
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
76c4b5ec5a96543a
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
48
1
7/9/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: Patrick J. Buchanan From: Kenneth L.
Khachigian RE: Gallup Poll released on
07/05 with interview dates prior to Supreme
Court ruling showing that 45% of the
American public had not heard or read about
the Pentagon papers. 4pgs
48
1
6/25/1971
Campaign
Memo
To: The President From: Patrick J. Buchanan
RE: "The Odds Against Henry Jackson."
4pgs
48
1
8/24/1970
Campaign
Memo
To: The President From: Patrick J. Buchanan
RE: "The Veep and The Campaign of 1970."
4pgs
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Page 1 of 1
1/4/11 drait
DETERMINED TO BE AN
Khachigian
ADMINISIRATIVE MARKING
CONFIDENTIAL
E.O. 12065, Section 6-102
By
NARS, Date
MEMORANDUM FOR: PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
FROM: KENNETH L. KHACHIGIAN
A Gallup Poll released on July 5th with interview dates prior
to the Supreme Court ruling showed that 45% of the American public
had not heard or read about the Pentagon papers. Considering that
millions of words and hours of television time have been devoted to
this very major news event, it is interesting that almost half the
public greeted the event with a yawn.
I think this phenomonon tells us something very important; namely,
the propensity of those of us in Washington to be inordinately influenced
by what is printed in the POST, the TIMES, or what appears on network
television. Our instinct seems always to attempt to counter that
which has become conventional wisdom on the Eastern seaboard rather than
concerning ourselves a little more with what happens west of the Alleghenies.
We should also learn from this that specific issues and events are
transitory in nature. They are not the things which will ultimately
influence the voters on election day. Thus, it is my candid opinion
that the precious commodity called "Presidential presence" is being
expended on specifics which are not determinative factors in the
contemporary American political experience.
Page 2
Events taking place today or even a year from today will
probably have little impact on the 1972 elections. Events and headlines
come and go. But impressions, as opposed to events, are built up
over months and years, and it is my belief that such impressions
will have a greater impact on voter behavior than do specific
occurrences.
Two substantive issues loom large in every Presidential
election: war and peace, and the economy. The President told us
this at the midterm election post-mortem last November. With those
two exceptions, substantive issues will not govern in any major way the
ability of the President to be re-elected (barring a scandal or major
gaffe).
In short, welfare reform, revenue sharing, ecology and other
substantive matters (including to some extent, I think, law and order)
should not be the major thrusts of Presidential emphasis during the
campaign. We have programs in these areas, and we have initiatives.
Our opponents cannot accuse us of inaction. Beyond that, that the
President ought to be really talking about what I think are the
"impression-creating" matters.
Page 3
We have got to use the Presidency to our greatest advantage
and that means communicating to the people the stuff of the Presidency.
It will require the President to address himself in the campaign to such
broad subjects as social stability, belief in our future, a visionof
what's ahead for America, a sense of direction and purpose, and
finally a rejection of all those who are afraid of the future.
Franklin Roosevelt was his own best P.R. man. He convinced
the public, in one of America's darkest hours, that fear (read,
pessimism) was the only thing to fear. This one public posture has
enabled Roosevelt to make hazy the rest of the history of that period.
And we must do the same. President Nixon should confront
the masochistic, self-flagellating hysteria which is generated so often
in the media that it has become believable. I really believe the
President can brand it as a great deal of hogwash. I mean a. bit more
than the "What's Right With America" speech. I think the theme has
to be a little more profound and philosophical, a theme which will
stir middle America to a rejection of those who are bleating over a
"sick America. "
As always, the President has led the way in this. I think
his own remarks and speeches reflect precisely what I am arguing.
If you read the transcript of the Kansas City Briefing, you will see
that the inspiring nature of his talk is the kind of rhetoric which will
be required in 1972. But we have to go beyond that and support
the President in that theme. So, in a full-blown campaign, the
media effort, the support effort of all the players, the activities
of Cabinet and senior White House Staff should reflect a positive
affirmation of the steady leadership that this President has brought
to the nation in a troubled time.
This is our greatest asset, and it should be hammered home
to those who concern themselves with Presidential image-making.
We don't need to make an image or change an image, we only have to
project thoughtfully and intelligently that which we already have.
We don't work for Richard Nixon because of revenue sharing, and
reorganization. We work for him because in each one of us he triggers
a mechanism which says: this man is the right man for America in
this particular time of history. Those things are impressions. They
work for us, and I think we ought to get to work making them work
for the electorate.
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 25, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
PATRICK J. BUCHANAN
SUBJECT:
The Odds Against Henry Jackson
That Senator Jackson is a candidate for his party's nomination -- there
is no question. That he can win it -- there appears little hope. But
Jackson has some very high cards to play which make him a strong
contender for Vice President, and a powerful force at the Democratic
National Convention.
JACKSON'S STRENGTHS
1. He has almost all the moderate and conservative columnists in the
palm of his hand. They like, admire and respect Scoop Jackson. A
cursory review of the last three months finds supportive presidential
talk about Jackson from columnists White, both Alsops, Kilpatrick,
Alexander, Cuneo, the Drummonds several times, Gould Lincoln,
Chamberlain, Wilson -- and on and on. (Evans & Novak are solicitous.)
They provide him with regular backpage support in most of the papers of
the nation. Even columnists who disagree with him (Wicker, Viorst)
respect him.
2. A choice not an echo: He is the single national Democrat who stands
as a clear alternative against the crowd of Bayh, Hughes, Muskie, McGovern,
Humphrey, Kennedy crowd. He emerges thus a visible rallying point for
conservative Democrats at the '72 convention.
3. Having hired the capable adviser Ben Wattenburg, he is paralleling
the Scammon-Wattenburg thesis. His attacks on "environmental extremists,"
his denunciation of fellow Democrats for paying "homage to the radical
fringe, " his focus on bread-and-butter issues, the economy and jobs, his
call for Democrats to stay on the "Economic Issue," not the war; his rough
terminology which is being described in liberal circles as "Agnewian" --
in all these instances, Jackson is setting himself up against the trendy,
2
bell-bottomed, elite of the left wing of his party -- and with the working
man center and right of his party. On issues, he is carving out his own
independent sector within the Democratic Party.
4. His super-hawkish anti-Soviet stand in the Middle East, his
fight for SST, against the "environmental extremists, 11 for space and
defense, not only make him first choice of George Meany -- but guarantee
a well-financed campaign from Aerospace, from Defense Industries,
from the Jewish Community, from Big Labor.
5. He is well respected by his Senate colleagues. A Drummond Poll
of the Senate found that 18 percent of Democrats felt Jackson "most
qualified to be President" ahead of Humphrey -- second only to Muskie --
(interestingly, EMK got less than anyone, three percent or one vote
of those polled.)
6. He gets excellent press coverage.
7. His hard-line on the Soviets, and on strategic defense, wins him
publicity plaudits from the Republican Conservative Community. While
such is of little use in a run for the nomination, it might be to any
Democrat for his Vice President.
8. On Vietnam he is down-playing his support of the President, leaving
it high enough to be visibly opposed to the rest of the pack, but shading it
a bit. Domestically, he pays occasional obeisance to such myths as the
"repression" by the Administration. Enough to keep his dues up -- but
not nearly enough to close the sizable gap that exists between him and
the liberal left of his party.
9. He is the best vote-getter in the Senate -- winning his primary
against a Galbraithian type by 85 percent -- and beating our candidate in
the general by the same margin -- 85 percent of the vote in a northwestern
industrial state. This evidence of massive support across the party
lines and throughout the ideological spectrum makes him especially
attractive as a Vice Presidential nominee.
10. His strength with press was evident in a poll of editors at ASNE
who felt he would probably have nearly best chance of any Democrat of
defeating RN.
3
DEFICIENCES
1. He has almost no recognition nationally. This will force him
to raise his profile rapidly, to announce fairly early, and probably to go
the primary route -- and it is doubtful how well he can do against
Democrats like Muskie.
2. He is apparently an unexciting speaker, who often bores
even those audiences who agree with him. One friend called him a
"Barry Goldwater without charisma."
3. His nomination would sunder the Democratic Party. And with
left-wing strength greater at this convention than the past, difficult to see
how his nomination could be swallowed by a Democratic Convention.
(However, if a Teddy Kennedy were nominated and Democratic conservatives
sufficiently outraged -- a Kennedy-Jackson ticket might do for the party
what the Kennedy-Johnson ticket did in 1960, bring it together again.
Where Johnson had the opposition of Labor and support of the South --
Jackson for Veep would have both the South and Labor in his corner.)
4. He is sixty years old, at least will be, when the Democratic
Convention is over. This is his last chance to be on a national Democratic
ticket, after three decades in the Senate.
JACKSON'S CHANCE
Having carved out an independent Churchillian Position, if you will,
on the Soviets, on the Middle East whence war is likely to come if it
comes -- Jackson is dependent upon circumstances. If the Vietnam war
is raging, and there is calm between East and West -- Jackson has
next to nothing going for him.
But if Vietnam is removed as an issue, and the Soviets become
belligerent in Europe or the Middle East or the Mediterranean or anywhere,
then Jackson may very well appear the man for the times. If national
focus turns upon American weakness in the face of a rapidly arming Soviet
Empire, then Jackson could generate real support among Conservative
Democrats, Meany unions and the South -- and even conservative
Republicans.
4
No other Democrat seems today capable of making credible a hard-line
policy against the USSR.
But in such times Jackson will ha ve a long shot for the top position,
and an inside track for the Vice Presidency.
THE FLORIDA PRIMARY
Jackson cannot win in New Hampshire; his lack of public recognition
requires him to step out early if he is to have any hope at the Convention.
Thus he is forced, it seems into the primaries. Thus Florida -- - according
to two writers -- which is the same day as New Hampshire - - becomes
crucial to Jackson.
If Jackson wins in Florida, and Muskie is defeated, then the Muskie
opening day becomes a flop; Muskie's candidacy is damaged; the Jackson
candidacy becomes interesting -- and the stage is set for a bitter
division at the Convention.
While we may be desirous ourselves of having a massive turnout for
RN in Florida -- there may be something worth while for us in assisting
the efforts of Scoop Jackson in that State. Something we ought to keep
in mind.
Pa
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
August 74, 1970
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Patrick J. Buchauan
THE VEEP AND THE CAMPAIGN OF 1970
Given this Scannmon Wattenburg thosis which I believe is
right on the mark for Democt ats we are in serious dangor of
being driven back to our minority party posture Our needs seem
crystal clear.
1. IVC cannot allow the Democrats to get back on the right
side of the Social Issue. This they are attempting to do right now
with tough talk, etc. They have to be branded
and the brand must
S lick as permissivists, as indulgent of students and black
riotes S, as soft on crime. This can be accomplished with their
record in the last Congress J. believe. But for us to contest
with them primarily on the Economic Issue Big Spenders, etc.
as the major assault seems to me not a prescription for success.
Republicans for forty years have been tarring Democratic Congresses
with "Big Spender" labels, and Democrate have been winning those
Congresses, lo, these same Forty Years.
The focus should be on tarring them with "ultra-liboraliom'
and "radicalism" especially on the Social Issue where we are strong 3
and they are weak.
2. Where are the swing voters in 1970? We must assune loft- - -
wing Democrats are going for their Democratic Candidates and Repub-
licans are going for Republicans, come hell or high water. The swint
voters are thus Democrats law and order Democrats, conservatives
on the "Social Issue, 11 but "progrossive on domestic issues. This
is the Wattenburg thesis and J. think it is basically correct. How
to conduct ourselves then.
Tax the Democrable Leadeculip specifically with the "radical"
label on social policy ter then as well with the "obsb untionist"
Jabel on the President's programs for reforming society, for
getting America moving.
Frankly, We should go after the "Daley Democrate, 11 No one
can do this better than the Vice President but we cannot get these
voters by using rebeahed Republican arguments or state
Republican rhetosic.
"Big Spenders" is a theme that might work, will work, with
our Republicans We are using it in all our GOP literature but
will it have any real bite with the union guy to whom big spending may
mean the medicare for his mom or old man ? dragging Gong) cas"
does not seem charged with much electricity, cither.)
3. Scammon contends that a hard-line on riots etc. by
Democrats may anger "liberals, 11 but liberals have no place to go
anyhow except the Democratic Party. Just so, regular Republicans
have no place to go in 1970 (no Wallace) but the GOP. So, lot's
go straight after the Daley Democrate.
4. The Vice President should win these Democrats to the
Presidential bauner by contending that RN is a progressive on
doine stic policy blocked by "obstructionists" in the left-wing leadership
of the Democratic Party; that RN is a hand-liner on crime, drugs and
P ornography, whose legislation is blocked by "ultraliberals" in the
Senate who care SO much about the rights of the criminal that they'
forget about the rights of society; that the President is a man
trying with voto after veto to hold down the cost of living but is
being thwarted by radicals and wild spenders who would, given the
chance, create the kind of in flation that would put Indonesia in its
heyday in the shade; that the President is a man in foreign policy
who is moving toward peace with honor but whose efforts are being
attacked and undercut by unilateral disarmers and isolationists
who think peace lies in an abject retreat from the world and the
dismantling of the army, navy and air force. This is said strong
but these 1. would think would be the ways the Vice President could
best appeal to the patriotic, hard-line pro-medicare Democrats whole
the missing element in the Grand New Party.
5. There is move alout to "Joy key" the Vice President's
campaign in 1970 to have him focus specially on the local issue
and not sook the national publicity. There in no conflict between
garnering national publicity and helping local Senate candidates
the two are thoroughly complanentary.
The Democrats see Scainmon's book are only now coming
around to recognize what we know in 1966 and 1968 that 21 strong
statement in Oregon is more effective in gotting to voters in New Jessey
than a banal statement in Trenton, Tenafly, Newark and Elizabeth. The
way for the Vice President to help the Schetorial Candidate is to
praise him to the skies, fine but to hammer the national
Democratic leadership in a manner that will keep our big press
corps excited and with US, that will get network time every night if
possible with our message; and SO help every Republican Senatorial
Candidate while we are helping the local one.
Right now the Agrew tour is getting tremendous publicity as the
potential best show in town, All we hav 0 to do to forfeit that national
P ublicity is run around talking about "cattle and oil" in Caspor,
as has been suggested already. We ought to remember also, that
when we give up the television time on the networks someone
else, namely our Democratic friends, gots it.
Mike Mansfield says the Democrats have no one to compete
with the Veep on the bustings. We have a tremendous advantage here
which we should use, not throw away by talking about local issues
that carry no national wallop.
We should have something topical and tough for the national
media every day. If the Vice President can raise the Republican
Administration a few points in the polls and the President by his
decisions and actions raise it several more the effect will be like
raising the water level and all the boats in the lake will rise at once.
A hard-hitting tough campaign can help bring home Senators and
Congressmen who live or die on a few national percentage points.
6. Clearly, from the Scanmon book, we should tar the
Democrats as being not only the party of "bugout" but the party of
bussing, the advocates of "compulsory integration, 11 the party whose
last Attorney General banged down the door in Chicago in order to
testify on behalf of the Chicago Eight, the leadership that let this
country turn into the porno capital of the world, and is blocking
RN's effort to change that. Also, the Democratic leadership has
altered its historic foreign policy position to kow. tow to student
radicals who bully ragged those same leaders in the streets of
Chicago, etc. The Democratic Headership should be portraye CS
selling out to the classes in their 07:01 rauks and selling out the
interests and views of the good patriotic Democrats who number in
the millions. We might even say LIV was destroyed by the "ultre-
liberals" in his own party.
% We should stay on the offensive, taken the "out" (and
offensive)position even though We are the "jus" (and defensive) by
hammering at the "Jiberal Eastern Establishneut" that is responsible
for what has happened to America, the "Establishmeut" that is
frustrating our efforts to right the wrongs in Society, the Establishment
whose wards are tearing up the colleges, the Establishment that
indulges rioters, etc. (Of course, said in better phraseology, but
the need to be on the offensive, to act as "outs" seems to me vital. )
8. The Economic Issue. To get into a debate on whether OF
not we are in a "recession" seems to me a ulterly foolish idea
since the very discussion of "recession" is surely not going to help us
and since anyone who is burt in the current economic situation is not
likely to be convinced be is not being hurt by anybody's rhotoric.
Rather than debate whether OT not the investors and brokers and
unemployed are being huri, let's go after the Democratic radicals
whose wild scheines are frustrating our efforts to stop the rise
in prices. This is the Big Spender theme but in different
rhetoric, tougher rhetoric, equating the Democrats with the same
kind of ultraliberalism in spending that they follow on the Social
Issue.
9. Finally, to change the Vice Presi dont now into the
traditional Republican campaigner is to change a winning strategy for
a losing one.