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 RN to Bob Haldeman RE: Suggested answers for Tricia and Julie when in front of press. 2 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From RN to John Mitchell RE: Guidance in gaining Democratic and Independents votes. Also, McGoverns potential nomination. 3 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26146731
label
WHSF: Contested, 50-14
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26146731
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 50-14
description
This file contains:
From RN to Bob Haldeman RE: Suggested answers for Tricia and Julie when in front of press. 2 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
From RN to John Mitchell RE: Guidance in gaining Democratic and Independents votes. Also, McGoverns potential nomination. 3 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 6/6/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26146731
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
612f1892cbcc0c9a
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
50
14
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to Bob Haldeman RE: Suggested
answers for Tricia and Julie when in front of
press. 2pgs. 2 copies.
50
14
6/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From RN to John Mitchell RE: Guidance in
gaining Democratic and Independents votes.
Also, McGoverns potential nomination.
3pgs. 2 copies.
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N- /
memo
RN to HRH re Julie F Tricia's ques.
6/6/72
C
[134]
re responses about Demo. candi-
date
copy of Doc # N-1
[6/6/72]
C
N-2
diaft
[134]
N-3 3
memo
RN to mitchell re sensitive
6/6/72
C
[135]
political matters
6/6/72
C
N-4 N- 4
draft
copy of Doc # N-3
[135]
RN to HAK re tactics of left-
6/6/72
J
N-5
memo
[136]
wrigers on SE asia
6/6/72
C
N-6
diaft
copy of Doc # N-5
[136]
N-7
memo
Clauson to RNN Godfrey
6/10/72
C
[137]
Sperling article
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
PPF
4
FOLDER TITLE
Memos- - June 1972
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.
D. 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.
NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION
NA FORM 1421 (4-85)
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: President's Personal Files
Box Number:
4
Folder:
Memos - June 1972
Document
Disposition
134
Return Private/Political
135
Return
Private/Political
136
Retain
Open
137
Retain Open
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN
FROM THE PRESIDENT
Rr
Julie and Tricia were asking me over the weekend what kind
of answers they can give now that the Democratic nomination
seems to be pretty much a foregone conclusion when asked
their opinion on the man or his stands.
My advice off the top of my head was for them to decline to
get into personalities, but to simply say that they didn't know
much about it except that from listening to the debates and
what Humphrey and other Democrats had said that it would
appear that McGovern might have a problem in uniting his party.
What I want you to direct Buchanan to do is to figure out all
the tough political questions that are likely to be put to Tricia
and Julie when they appear on talk shows over the next few
months and for him to prepare suggested answers for them which
will keep them from getting involved personally, but which
will avoid their appearing to be totally non-responsive when such
a question is raised. It is vitally important, of course, that
they not get headlines which indicates that the daughters of the
President are attacking the Democratic nominee. The more
off-hand, subtle kind of answer is what I have in mind. This
is not generally Buchanan's approach, but I think if you explain
it to him he will find ways to tackle the problem that could be
very effective. I want you to look over the Q & A after he
prepares it before sending it on to Tricia and Julie. This should
be done before the end of this week because they are both going
to be on shows next week and the week after, as I understand it.
They have done extremely well winging it on their own on these
political questions up to this point, although I realize they have
had considerable help from the staff on substantive matters on
- 2 -
where do I stand on environment, welfare, etc. In view of the
Moscow trip I told Julie and Tricia that if they were asked
what the major issue of 1972 would be that they should respond
that while the domestic issues were, of course, extremely
important, that where the Presidency was concerned it would
be their opinion that most young people, as well as other voters,
would be primarily interested in which of the two candidates
was best qualified to lead the United States in international
affairs and to build on the great peace initiatives we have begun
in China and the Soviet Union. In any event, I want some more
intensive thinking done on how they should respond to such
questions in the light of our recent Moscow trip, having in
mind the fact that we want to keep them and all of our speakers
talking about our issue which is international affairs, and
except for domestic issues that have a real appeal like busing,
amnesty and pot to stay off of the domestic issues.
I think the materials prepared for them so far have probably
put a little too much emphasis on the environment, welfare
reform, revenue sharing, etc. These are good, safe things
to talk about but they are relatively dull and will become rather
irrelevant as the campaign heats up.
Haldeman
Julie and Tricia were asking me over the weekend what kind
of answers they can give now that the Democratic nomination seems
to be pretty much a foregone conclusion when asked their NX
opinion on the man or his stands.
My advice afothexx off the top of my head was for them to
decline to get into personalities but to XMXX simply say that they
didn't know much about it except that from listening to the debates
and what Humphrey and other Democrats had said that it would
appear that McGovern might have a problem in uniting his party.
What I want you to direct Buchanan to do is to figure out
all the tough political questions that are likely to be put to Tricia
and Julie when they appear on talk shows over the next few months
and for him to prepare suggested answers for them which will keep
them from getting involved personally but which will avoid their
appearing to be totally non-responsive when such a question is
raised. It is vitally important, of course, that they not get
headlines which indicates that the daughters of the President are
attacking the Democratic nom inee. The more off-hand, subtle
kind of ansexxxx answer is what I have in mind. This is not generally
Buchanan's approach but I think if you explain it to him he will
find ways to tackle the problem that could be very effective. I
want you to look over the Q & A after he prepares it before sending
it on to Tricia and Julie. This should be done before the XXX end
of this week because they are both going to be on shows next week
Haldeman -2-
and the week after as I understand it. They have done extremely
well winging it on their own on these political questions up to
this point, although I realize they have had considerable help
from the staff on substantive matters on like where do I stand
on environment, welfare, etc. In view of the Moscow trip I told
Julie and Tricia that if they were asked what the major issue of
1972 would be that they should respond that while the domestic
issues were, of course, extremely important, that where the
Presidency was concerned it would be their opinion that most
young people, as well as other voters, would be
primarily interested in which of the two candidates was best
qualified to lead the XXXXX United States in international affairs
and to build on the great peace initiatives we have begun in China
and the Soviet Union. In any event, I want some more intensive
thinking done on how they should respond to such questions in the
light of our EX recent Moscow trip, having in mind the fact that
we want to keep them and all of our speakers talking about our
issue which is international affairs, and except for issues- domestic
issues that have a real appeal like busing, amnesty and pot to
stay off of the domestic issues.
I think the materials prepared for them so far have probably
put a little too much emphasis on the environment, welfare reform,
revenue sharing, etc. These are good, safe things to talk about
but they are relatively dull and will become rather irrelevent as the
campaign heats up.
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
June 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR JOHN MITCHELL
FROM THE PRESIDENT
@
This memorandum is for your information and guidance, and
the contents and observations should only be used on your own
and not attributed to me since some rather sensitive political
matters are contained in it.
In talking to John Connally he has decided within the last two
weeks that McGovern will probably be nominated.
As you know, it has been his thought all along that Kennedy
would inevitably pick up the marbles at the crucial time just
before or during the Convention.
However, from a number of sources it is becoming apparent
that a last-ditch effort may be made by Kennedy to try to
have a deadlock so that Kennedy could still get the nomination.
This seems unlikely in view of his decision to get rid of his
Secret Service, but on the other hand that might just be a ploy
for the purpose of playing that game. There is no question but
that there has been and probably still is a deal between Kennedy
and Mills. In fact, from sources that I believe are absolutely
reliable, Mills desperately wants to go on the ticket with
anybody, including McGovern. This, incidentally, I think would
be a great mistake on the part of whoever is at the top of the
ticket because I think Mills is a shrewd operator in the House
and a lousy national candidate.
In talking to Connally he made one point very strongly with
which I totally agree. To put it in perspective it is necessary for
me to point out that one of the major mistakes we made in 1960
was to allow Republicans, particularly in the Southern states,
to control the Nixon organization and also to be out front in the
Nixon effort. Their interest, of course, was to use the
Presidential campaign for the purpose of building the Republican
Party in their states. This was particularly true in Texas and
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
- 2 -
some of the other critical states in the South which we lost.
It was also a national phenomenon. We avoided it in a state
like California only because Bob Finch was totally aware of
the California problems and saw to it that we ran a campaign
that did not cut out the Independents and Democrats.
Connally's admonition is that as we see the inevitability now
of a McGovern nomination we must "leave the door open" for
Democrats and Independents not only to join us but to have
positions of real leadership in the Nixon campaign. I can't
emphasize too strongly how much I agree with his position.
You will get squeals of outrage from the National Committee.
and from State Chairmen, but we must remember that if the
Republican Party, weak as it is, is to be rebuilt it cannot be
done so at the expense of risking losing the Presidential election.
The time to do it will be after the election.
Every state is to be examined with a merciless and impartial
eye as to what people in that state we need in order to carry it.
Generally speaking, you will find that what we need are
prominent Democrats and Independents who will join our cause
and if possible who will take positions of leadership in it.
In California one of the reasons we probably have less of a chance
in 1972 than we had in 1960 or in 1968 is the fact that Reagan
and the regular Republicans will insist on running the campaign.
This will make it a walking disaster and the same is true of
Texas and all the Southern States as well as some of the other
states, including states like Pennsylvania where we need
prominent Democrats. For example, Rizzo is infinitely more
important to us in Pennsylvania than Scott or Schweiker. Ways
have got to be found to allow Rizzo to be out in front if he is
willing to do so.
The pur pose of this memo is simply to make sure that an
examination is made of the state's situation with only one view
in mind what men and women can do us the most good in
getting us the votes we need -- the votes of Independents and
Democrats ? Always have in mind that only 24 percent of the
people in the last Gallup Poll were willing to admit that they
were Republicans. With this kind of a base, putting Republicans
out in front, is simply asking for suicide. This does not mean
that the Republican organization should be cut out -- it does
mean that we should avoid identifying too closely with Republican
EYES ONLY
EYES ONLY
- 3 -
candidates who are weaker than we are or with Republican
organizations that are in ill repute. It does mean that whenever
we can get Independents or Democrats to take a lead role
this could make the difference between winning or losing the
state and even possibly the election.
The McGovern strategy is becoming very clear now that he
believes that he has the nomination wrapped up. His going to
the Governors' Conference for the purpose of "clarifying his
stand on amnesty, marijuana, abortion and welfare is a case
in point. I know there are those who will say that he can't get
away with it any more than Goldwater was able to get away with
it when he tried to enlist Republican Governors in Cleveland
in 1964. There are two very significant differences. McGovern
is more clear and less principled than Goldwater and will say
anything in order to win. And second, McGovern will have
about 100 percent support from the media in his effort to clean
himself up so that he can beat us in the final. This points up
the necessity at this time to get Democrats and Independents,
not Republicans, to nail McGovern on the left side of the road
which his record so clearly identifies him with. We must
remember our experience in 1970. We thought that with people
like Adlai Stevenson, Burdick, Moss, et al and their total
record of permissiveness, anti-defense, anti-law enforcement,
a good hard-hitting supporter on our side could win. What
happened was that people like Stevenson ended up riding in
police cars and wearing American flags and the media, of
course, completely refused to point up their hypocrisy in
making the change. We are going to be up against exactly the
same problem with the media in this case and every possible
effort must be made to develop a program now to counteract
this obvious tactic which is being developed.
RN Tape 6/6/72
Memorandum for John Mitchell
This memorandum is for your information and guidance and the
contents and observations should only be used on your own and
not attributed to me since some rather sensitive political matters
are contained in it.
In talking to John Connally he has decided within the last
two weeks that McGovern will probably be nominated.
As you know, it has been his thought all along that Kennedy
would inevitably pick up the marbles at the crucial time just
before or during the Convention.
However, from a number of sources it is becoming
apparent that a last-ditch effort may be made by Kennedy to try
to have a deadlock so that Kennedy could still get the nomination.
This seems unlikely in view of his decision to get rid of
his Secret Service but on the other hand that might just be a ploy
for the purpose of playing that game. There is no question but
that there has been and probably still is a deal between Kennedy
and Mills. In fact, from sources that I believe are absolutely
reliable Mills desperately wants to go on the ticket with anybody,
including McGovern. This, incidentally, I think would be a great
mistake on the part of whoever is at the top of the ticket because
I think Mills is a shrewd operator in the House and a lousy
national candidate.
Mitchell
-2-
In kalkigxx talking to Connally he made one point very
strongly with which I totally agree. To put it in perspective
it is necessary for me to point out that one of the major mistakes
we made in 1960 was to allow Republicans, particularly in
Southern states, to control the Nixon organization and also too be
out front in the Nixon effort. Their interest, of course, was to
use the presidential campaign for the purpose of building the
Republican party in their states. This was particularly true in
Texas and some of the other critical states in the South which we
lost. It was also a national phenomenon. We avoided it in a
state like California only because Bob Finch was totally aware
of the California problems and saw to it that we ran a campaign
that did not cut out the independence ef- the Democrats.
Independents and the Democrats.
Connally's admonition is that as we see the inevitably now
of a McGovern nomination we must "leave the door open" for
Democratw and Independents not only to join us but to have positions
of real leadership in the Nixon campaign. I can't emphasize too
strongly how much I agree with his position. You will get squeals
of outrage from the National Committee and from state chairmen
but we must remember that if the Republican Party, weak as it is,
is to be rebuilt it cannot be done so at the expense of risking losing
the Presidential election. The time to do it will be after the election.
Every state is to be examined with a merciless and impartial
Mitchell -- 3-
eye as to what people in that stat e we need in order to carry it.
Generally speaking, you will find that what we need are prominent
Democrats and Independents who will join our cause and if
possible who will take positions of leadership in it.
In California one of the reasons we are-- probably have
less of a chance in 1972 than we had in 1960 or in 1968 is the fact
that Reagan and the regular Republicans will insiste on running
the campaign. This will make it a walking disaster and the same
is true of Texas and all the Southern states as well as some of the
othe r states, including states like Pennsylvania where we need
prominent Democrats. For example, Rizzo.is infinitely more
important to us in Pennsylvania than Scott or Webwexxx
Schweiker. Ways have got to be found to get-Rizzo - allow Rizz 0
to be out in front if he is willing to do so.
The pu rpose of this memo is simply to make sure that
an examination is made of the states situation with only one view
in mind -- what men and women can do us the most good in getting
us the votes we need -- the votes of Independents and Democrats.
Always have in mind that only 24 percent of the people in the
last Gallup Poll were willing to admit that they were Republicans.
With this kind of a base, putting Republicans out in front, is
simply asking for suicide. This does not mean that the Republican
organization should be cut out -- it does mean that we should avoid
identifying too closely with Republican candidates who are weaker
than we are or with Republican organizations that are in ill repute.
Mitchell - 4 -
It does mean that whenever we can get Independents or Democrats
to take a lead role this could make the difference between winning
or losing the state and even possibly the election.
The McGovern strategy is becoming very clear now that he
His
believes that he has the nomination wrapped up. Xlexis going to
the Governors' Conference for the purpose of "clarifying" his
stand on amnesty, marijuana, abortion and welfare is a case in
point. I know there are those who will say that he can't get away
with'it any more than Goldwater was able to get away with it when
he tried to enlist Republican Governors in Cleveland in 1964.
There are two very significant differences. McGovern is more
clever and less principled than Goldwater and will say anything in
order to win. And second, McGovern will have about 100 percent
from- support from the media in his effort to clean himself up so
that he can beat us in the final. This points up the necessity at
this paxixitx time to get Democrats and Independents, not Republicans,
to nail McGovern on the left side of the road which his record so
clearly identifies him with. We must remember our experience
in 1970. We thought that with people like Adlai Stevenson, Burdick
EK Moss, et al and their total record of permissiveness, anti-defense,
anti-law enforcement, a good hard-hitting supporter on our side
could win. What happened was that people like Stevenson ended up
riding in police cars and wearing American flage and the media, of
course, completely refused to point up their hypocrisy in making
the change. We are going to be up against exactly the same problem
Mitchell - 5 -
with the media in this case and every possible effort must be made
to develop a program now to counteract this obvious tactic whichis
being developed.