Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "26146733",
    "label": "WHSF: Contested, 50-15",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146733"
}

{
    "id": "26146733",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146733",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "WHSF: Contested, 50-15",
    "description": "This file contains:\n\nFrom RN to Tricia and Julie RN: Suggested anecdotes when asked about political events and also of personal anecdotes of Nixon that are not publicly known. 3 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/24/1972\n\nFrom RN to B. Haldeman RE: Limiting registration efforts to non-college youth. 2 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/23/1972\n\nFrom RN to B. Haldeman RE: Guidance in handling the press. 3 pgs. 2 copies. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 7/30/1972",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146733",
    "collections": [
        "Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection",
        "Contested Materials Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/33/1467/26146733/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-50/Contested-50-15.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/33/1467/26146733/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-50/Contested-50-15.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/33/1467/26146733/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-50/Contested-50-15.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/26146733",
    "naId": 26146733,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/opastorage/live/33/1467/26146733/content/presidential-libraries/nixon/RN-RET/2546065/Contested-Box-50/Contested-50-15.pdf",
    "mediaId": "52fe51eab9e80ac0",
    "ocrText": "Richard Nixon Presidential Library\nContested Materials Collection\nFolder List\nBox Number\nFolder Number\nDocument Date\nNo Date\nSubject\nDocument Type\nDocument Description\n50\n15\n7/24/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom RN to Tricia and Julie RN: Suggested\nanecdotes when asked about political events\nand also of personal anecdotes of Nixon that\nare not publicly known. 3pgs. 2 copies.\n50\n15\n7/23/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom RN to B. Haldeman RE: Limiting\nregistration efforts to non-college youth.\n2pgs. 2 copies.\n50\n15\n7/30/1972\nCampaign\nMemo\nFrom RN to B. Haldeman RE: Guidance in\nhandling the press. 3pgs. 2 copies.\nThursday, May 24, 2012\nPage 1 of 1\nDOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]\nDOCUMENT\nDOCUMENT\nNUMBER\nTYPE\nSUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS\nDATE\nRESTRICTION\nN-1\nmemo\nRN to Tricia ? tulie u anecdotes\n7/24/72\nCa\n[138]\nN-2 N. 2\ndiaft\ncopy of Doc # N-1\n7/24/72\nC\n[138]\nN-3\nmemo\n[139]\nRN to HRH Gallup Poel on youth\n7/23/72\nC\nN-4\n[139]\ndiaft\ncopy of Doc # N-3\n[7/23/72\nJC\nN-5\nmemo\nRN to HRH re Lou Cannon's acticle\n[140]\nin Washington Post\n7/30/72\nC\nN-6\ndiaft\ncopy of Doc # N-5\n[7/30/72]\nC\n[140]\nFILE GROUP TITLE\nBOX NUMBER\nPPF\n4\nFOLDER TITLE\nMemor July 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: President's Personal Files\nBox Number:\n4\nFolder:\nMemos - July 1972\nDocument\nDisposition\n138\nReturn Private/Political\n139\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\n140\nReturn\nPrivate/Political\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nJuly 24, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR TRICIA AND JULIE\nFROM THE PRESIDENT\nRr\nIt occurs to me that from time to time you may be asked\nfor anecdotes which would relate to some of the political\nevents that have occurred over the years.\nOne of the best ones is a Churchill quote which could well\nbe used by each of you when the question is raised as to how\nyou felt after the 1960 campaign. As you will recall,\nChurchill in 1945, after the allies had won the war came up\nfor election. To the great surprise of the whole world and\nof everybody concerned, the Labor Party won and Churchill\nlost. Churchill's wife, the next day, said to him, \"This\nmay be a blessing in disguise. \" Churchill's response was,\n\"If this was a blessing it was very well disguised. \" You\nmight say that that is the way that both of you felt after the\nelection defeat in 1960.\nAnother line that is very useful is with regard to the come-\nback after the defeat in California. You could tell of how\nPresident de Gaulle gave a luncheon for your mother and\nme, and that after the luncheon he told some of his very\nclose associates that he thought your father had a position of\npolitical leadership ahead of him despite what had happened\nin the 1960 and 1962 elections. You can also point out that\nin his informal toast that he gave at the luncheon he surprised\neverybody concerned by referring to his past friendship for\nyour father and said that he felt that there was more\nresponsibility for leadership in the years ahead.\n- 2 -\nOf course, de Gaulle had his ups and downs as well. After\nleading the French resistance forces to victory in World War\nII and serving as the head of government in France for a\nperiod, he lost the election and went into total retirement.\nHe then came back many years later when France needed him\nto hold the country together and to give a new spirit to the\nFrench people.\nAlso, on a personal side, you might mention some of our\nChristmas parties where I played the piano for group singing,\netc., always by ear. In fact, one particularly interesting\nanecdote was an occasion in New York when Tom Dewey\nwas there and Monsignor Ahearn as well as Bishop Cooke,\nwho later became Cardinal. Ahearn had a beautiful tenor\nvoice and Dewey was an excellent baritone. I played the\npiano and the two of them sang a duet to the delight of 75\nto 100 of our guests who were present.\nYou can say that these kinds of events are not publicly known\nbut they have been part of the Nixon story that is to you most\nheartwarming. And also point out that when you had your own\nbirthday parties, etc., that I from time to time played a\nhappy birthday song for you.\nI think another personal note that could be made is that when\nI come in to dinner at the White House - before dinner I\nwill often make telephone calls. I call people who may be\nsick, who have had hard luck like losing an election or not\ngetting a promotion in business that they expected, or some-\ntimes the mother of someone who has been killed in action.\nThese calls never, of course, are publicized because they\nare personal in nature, but I feel this is one of the responsi-\nbilities of the President. As a matter of fact, one of the most\nrewarding things about the position is to be able to call\npeople, not only when they have been very successful and to\ncongratulate them, but also when they have fallen on hard\ntimes or had back luck one way or another. To me these\npersonal calls never given to the press are the most rewarding\nones I make from a personal standpoint. Everybody, of course,\ncalls an individual when he does well and when he is successful.\nI know from experience that you receive very few letters or\n- 3 -\ncalls when you suffer a defeat. It is in that period that\nyou find out who your real friends are, and a President\nshould always be the first one to recognize this fact -- to\nstick by people or to remember them on those occasions\nwhen they have reason to believe that everyone else has\nforgotten them.\nRN Tape 7/24/72\nMemorandum to Tricia AND Julie\nIt occurs to me that from time to time you may\nbe asked for anecdotes which would relate to some of the political\nevents that have occurred over the years.\nOne of the best ones is a Churchill quote which\ncai Id well be used by each of you when the question is raised\nas to how you felt after the 1960 campaign. As you will recall,\nChurchill in 1945 after the allies had won the war came up for\nelection. Britain, to the great surprise of the whole world and\nof everybody concerned, the Labor Party won and Churchill lost.\nChurchill' S wife the next day said to him \"this may be a blessing\nS in disguise. \" Churchill's response was, \"if this was axbedisxx\nblessing it was very well disguised. \" You might say that that is\nthe way that both of you felt after the election defeat of 1960.\nAnother line that is very useful is with regard\nto the comeback after the defeat In California. You could tell\nof how President de Gaulle gave a luncheon for your mother and\nme and that after the luncheon he told some of his very close\nassociates that he thought that - your father had a position of\npolitical leadership ahead of him despite what had happened in\nthe 1960 and 1962 elections. You can also point out that in his\nf informal toast that he gave at the luncheon he surprised\neverybody concerned by referring to his past friendship for your\n- 2 -\nfather and said that he felt that there was more responsibilities\nfor leadership in the years ahead.\nOf course, De Gaulle had his ups and downs as\nwell. After leading the Freech resistance forces ***** to victory\nin Worl d War II and serving as the head of government in France\nfor a period he lost the election and went into total retirement.\nHe then came back many years later when France needed him to\nhold the country together and to give a new spirit to the French\npeople.\nAlso on a personal side, you might make mention\nsome of our Christmas parties where I played the piano for\ngroups singing, etc., always by ear. In fact, one particj ularly\ninteresting anecdote was when- an occasion in New York when\nTom Dewey was there and Monsignor Ahearn as well as Bishop\nCooke who later became Cardinalf. Ahearn had a beautiful tenor\nvoice and Dewey was aN excellent baritone. I played the piano\nand the two of them sang a duet to the delight of 75 to 100 of our\nguests who were present.\nsaythat\nThese kinds of events are not publicly known but\nthey have been part of the Nixon story that is to you most\nheartwarming. And also point out that when you had your own\nbirthday parties, etc. that I from time to time played a kpapx happy\nbirthday song for you.\n- 3 -\nI think another personal note that could be made\nis that when I come in to dinner at the White House - before\ndinner I will often make telephone calls. I call people who may\nbe sick, who have had hard luck like losing an election or not\ngetting a promotion in business that they expected, or sometimes\nthe mother of someone who has been killed in action. These\ncalls never, of course, ar publicized because they are personal\nin nature, but I feel this is one of the responsibilities of the\nPresident. As a matter of fact, one of the most rewarding things\nabout the position is to be able to call people not only when they\nhave been very successful and to congratulate them, but also\nwhen they have fallen on hard times or had back lunck one way\nor another. To me these personal calls never given to the press\nare the most rewarding ones I make on-a-personal- from a personal\nstandpoint. Everybody, of course, calls ixxx an individual when\nhe does well and when he is successful. I know from experience\nthat you receive very few letters or calls when you suffer a defeat.\nIt is in that period that you find out who your real friends are, and\na President should always be the first one to recognize this\nfact -- to stick by peope or to remember them on those occasions\nwhen they have reason to believe that everyone else has forgotten\nthem.\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nWASHINGTON\nSunday - July 23, 1972\nCamp David\nMEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN\nFROM THE PRESIDENT\nPm\nIn studying the New York Times release of the Gallup Poll\non youth one lesson comes through loud and clear -- it is\nimperative that we limit our registration efforts wherever\npossible, without announcing that that is our tactic, to the\nnon-college youth. Of course, some registration of college\nyouth on a very selective basis should be undertaken, but\ngenerally speaking we have to realize that there is about a\ntwo to one chance that college youth will vote for McGovern.\nThere is about an even chance that the non-college youth\nwill vote for us.\nIf a youth registration drive begins, pushed by the McGovern\nforces, every effort should be made to get them to direct\nthat drive to non-college as well as to college youth. I\nknow that our plan is to register youth selectively by\nfinding out in advance which side they are on and then going\nforward in the registration. Here it is very important that\nthe question asked not be on partisan terms. Over half of\nall youth list themselves as Independents rather than\nRepublicans or Democrats. Consequently, it should simply\nbe a question of asking whether they are for McGovern or\nNixon and then registering those that are for Nixon.\nOf course, it could be argued that the registration drive\namong youth, even non-college youth, is not one that we\nshould undertake at all, since at the very best they would\nsplit 50-50. This is much poorer than the national average\nand much poorer than what we would do among older voters.\nHowever, to avoid the effect on older voters of our conceding\nthe youth vote to McGovern, we need to make some effort in\nthis area. Let us limit it to the target states, particularly\n- 2 -\nthe big city areas and the down-state areas where we might\npick up support and except for a token effort let us concen-\ntrate on non-college, blue collar youth, among ethnics and,\nof course, among those few that might lean to our side\nbecause of their background in a Republican family.\nI emphasize again that the whole youth effort should be one\nthat gets across the idea that youth will not overwhelmingly\nbe in McGovern's pocket, that we have in the nation very\nsubstantial support among younger voters and that we are going\nto get more as they learn what the issues are. In fact,\nsomething can be gained by pointing out that we are concen-\ntrating on registering all youth and that the McGovern\npeople are limiting themselves to the elite youth who have\ngone to college or are in colleges and universities.\nHalkeman\nDate the membrandum - Sunday - Camp David\nIn studying the New York Times release of the\nGallup Poll on youth one lesson comes through loud and clear --\nit is imperative that we limit our registration efforts wher ever\npossible without announcing that that is our tactic, to the\nnon-college youth. Of course, some registration of college\nyouth on a very selective basis should be undertaken, but\ngenerally speaking we have to realize that there is about a\ntwo to one chance that college youth will vote for McGovern.\nThere is about an even chance that the non-college youth will\nvote for us.\nIf a youth registration drive begins pushed by\nthe McGovern forces every effort should be made to get them\nto direct that drive to non-college as well as to college youth.\nI know that our plan is to register youth selectively by finding\nout in advance which side they are onand then going forward in\nthe registration. Here it is very important that the question\nasked not be on partisan terms. Over half of all youth list themselves\nas Independents rather than Republican or Democrat. Consequently,\nit should simply be a question of asking whether they are from\nfor McGovern or Nixon and then registering those that are for\nNixon.\n- *xxx 2 -\nOf course it could be argued that the registration drive among\nyouth, even non-college youth, is not one that we should undertake\nat all, since at the very best they would split 50-50, this is much\npoorer than the national average and much poorer than what we\nwould do among older voters. However, to avoid the effect on\nolder voters of our conceding the youth vote to McGovern, we\nneed to make some effort in this area. Let us limit it to the\ntarget states, particularly the big city areas and the down-state\nareas where we might pick up support and except for a token\neffort let us concentrate on non-college, blue collar youth, among\nethnics and of course among those who tend to lean to our side\nbecause of their background in a Republican family.\nI emphasize again that the whole youth effort should\nbe one that gets across the idea in the nation that youth will not\ninthe nation\noverwhelmingly be in McGovern's pocket, that we have very\nsubstantial support among younger voters and that we are going\nto get more as WEXXX they learn what the issues are. In fact,\nsomething can be gained by pointing out that we are concentrating\non registering all youth and that the McGovern people are\nlimiting themselves to the elite youth who have gone to college\nor are in colleges and universities.\nNOTE: Two copies. One for the President's file and one for Bob\nHaldeman - not for distribution otherwise. That is always\nthe case where I dictate a political memorandum unless I\nindicate that the political memorandum is to go to others. (RN)\nCAMP DAVID\nSunday - July 30, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN\nFROM THE PRESIDENT\nIn reading Lou Cannon's piece in the Sunday Washington Post\nI think we can get some guidance as to the handling of the press on\ncampaign matters which should be followed strictly.\nI do not want people who talk about the campaign to make the\nmistake of cutting off representatives of periodicals, TV and newspapers\nsimply because they are generally against us. Consequently, I do not\nobject to an article, appearing from time to time, in unfriendly publications\nwhich is based on conversations with our campaign people. Having said\nthis, however, we need some completely ironclad rules with regard to\nwho talks to media representatives that we know are antagonistic to us.\nFirst of all, it is vitally important that only the most intelligent\nand sophisticated person on our campaign staff dare to go in the ring with\none of these people. Second, we should not waste time with one of them\nat the expense of turning down interviews with media representatives who\nare our friends. Third, even when our most intelligent people are meet-\ning with people like Cannon they must constantly keep in mind that they\nare confronting a political enemy and that everything they say will, there-\nfore, be used against us. I have to emphasize this over and over again\nbecause we never seem to get it across to our people no matter how\nmany times they get burned.\nThe Cannon piece is the best example we can have of why these\nrules should be rigidly adhered to. In the first place, while we know the\nWashington Post is totally gainst us it is just as well to have a piece that\nhas some favorable points in it as well as completely negative ones.\nTherefore, I have no objections to the fact that Cannon was given interviews\nby the Campaign Committee. On the other hand, it waa a stupid mistake\n-which must never be repeated - to allow Cannon to have the run of the\nWhite House staff, the campaign staff and the National Committee staff\nin getting his story together. The PR types representative of each of\n- 2 -\nthese groups must have a rule tha when media representatives, who\nare antagonistic, come in for interviews they are treated courteously\nbut that only the top political man with great sophistication will be\nallowed to talk to him. In addition, whenever that man talks to the\ninterviewer the press man should sit in on the interview so as to keep\nit honest.\nIn that connection, incidentally, I was rather surprised to\nfind that we did not have a recording of Clark MacGregor's remarks\nat the Press Club. It will be a very modest expense - but it is\nabsolutely essential that a man with a small recording device go with\nhim everywhere he goes so that we have a record of what he says which\nhe can put out in the event that we want to correct a misquotation or\nget out a story that was not covered adequately. The same, I think,\nshould be true of Dole. As you know we have always followed this\ncustom with regard to my own appearances.\nNow, looking at the Cannon story from both the plus and the\nminus standpoints, we find a good headline \"Nixon Running Scared,\"\nand a good thrust insofar as there being no complacency.\nFrom a minus standpoint, it is obvious that Cannon had the\nrun of the shop and in addition to talking to Haldeman in the White\nHouse and MacGregor at the Committee to Re-Elect, Dole at the\nRepublican National Committee, he talked to people up and down the\nline and got a number of quotes that are both inaccurate and not helpful.\nI am not, of course, referring to quotes that he has from Republican\nSenators and Congressmen. We have no control whatsoever over this.\nWhat I am referring to are quotes that he obviously had to get since\nhe has it in quotation marks - - from people on the campaign staff.\nFor example, as I have often emphasized, it is a mistake\nconstantly to run down my previous campaigns. We should not contri-\nbute to the myth that I did not work hard enough in 1960 and 1968. The\nquotation to the effect that before the election in November I had gotten\nso confident that I was working on my acceptance speech, taking rests,\netc., is totally inaccurate, as you know, and very harmful.\nWith regard to MacGregor's own interview, I would like for\nyou to get together with him and Dole on one point and to have a rule\nenforced throughout the balance of the campaign. He was putting out\npolls from California and Texas as well as Ohio and Illinois. There was\nno reason why he should not have done this since we have not indicated\nin the past what our policy was in this respect. However, under\n- 3 -\nabsolutely no circumstances are any polls whatever to be put out\nshowing us ahead or behind in any of the major states without my\nspecific approval. This is an area where well-intentioned people\nwill put out a poll for what they think is a good reason - in this case\nto knock down complacency -- but where later on they are going to\nbe asked for polls in these states when they might not want to put\nthem out. Also, I don't want the impression to get across the country\nthat we are conducting our campaign on the basis of polls rather than\non the basis of principles. I want you specifically to see that this is\nbrought up at the next meeting where Mitchell, Dole, MacGregor, et\nal, are present. Mitchell, of course, would not have made this mistake\nMacGregor made it only because of lack of experience.\nAlong the same line, I noted where the statement was made\nthat abortion was a minus issue for the President because polls showed\nthat a majority of women favored it. This obviously comes from the\nHarper group in the Domestic Council Staff. I want you to get hold of\nEhrlichman and tell him that he is to see that absolutely no one in the\nDomestic Council talks to anyone in the press without his specific\napproval and then a press man from Ron's office is to be present.\nEhrlichman, of course, would not make such a stupid mistake and the\nonly way he can control others is to put a tight reign on them.\nFor example, Syndlinger ran into outraged reaction the evening\nthat the National Committee put out findings from their Platform\nCommittee poll to the effect that a majority of the members of the\nPlatform Committee found out that bussing was not a significant issue.\nI want some discipline enforced in this respect for reasons which should\nbe obvious even to the most stupid of our people.\nAnother line which we should knock down is that there is no\ngrass roots support for the President and that we have to get \"volunteers\none at a time. \" This probably comes from Sears or somebody in that\ngroup. The question here is not whether this may be true - and I doubt\nif it is in terms of getting volunteers one at a time - but it plays right\ninto the hands of our political enemies. I could give other examples but\nI close the memorandum with this admonition: Let's quit tackling our\nown ball carrier. 11\nCAMP DAVID\nSunday - July 30, 1972\nMEMORANDUM FOR BOB HALDEMAN\nFROM THE PRESIDENT\nThis is a post script to the memorandum I wrote to you\non the Washington Post story.\nIn laying down the rules that only our top people can talk to\nantagonistic media representatives and then only under the very\nstrictest surveillance by one of the people from the press office, I\nrealize that this is difficult to enforce because people at other levels\nin the campaign need a chance to express themselves and do not like\nthe idea of feeling that they cannot be trusted to talk to members of\nthe press. There is an easy way to handle this. Deliberately develop\noccasions where they can talk to friendly representatives of the media.\nI realize there are not too many but on the other side of the coin our\nmajor problem, as you know, is that we give about twice as much time\nto unfriendly people as we do to friendly press people. In this campaign\nI want this thing reversed as much as we can. One way we can at least\nreward our friends is to give them the opportunity to talk to second\nechelon people - something that we will not allow to unfriendly people.\nThis way we kill two birds with one stone. Our staffers will get the\nsatisfaction of being able to sound off about their views in the campaign\nand in addition our friends in the press and television will be getting\nsomething that their competitors will not be getting.\nThere perhaps could not be clearer proof of the difference\nbetween the kind of treatment we will get in the press and the kind of\ntreatment McGovern will get in the press than the Nixon/McGovern\narticles in the Sunday Post today - July 30. The Nixon article, as I\npointed out earlier in the memorandum, makes some points that we\nwant to have made but does not miss an opportunity to make all the\nnegative points that are part of the mythology with regard to our\ncampaigns.\n- 2\nThe McGovern article by Spencer Rich, as we might expect,\nis a total puff piece. This comparison only demonstrates the wisdom\nof my advice that we have to be much more careful in programming\ninterviews with unfriendly press people than we do with friendly press\npeople.\nIncidentally, when I said earlier in the memorandum that I\nthought we should see some of the unfriendly media people I meant\nonly those who reached fairly substantial audiences that we could not\nafford to ignore. Under no circumstances, do I want any more time\nwasted, for example, on John Osborne on the left or his counterparts\non the far right. I say this not because they are against us but because\nthe audience they reach simply is not that important to us.\nXXX XXNX KX XXXgXXX XXXXX XXXX XX\nKXXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX X XX XgaXnXx X XXXXXXXXXX XXeXXXXXXXXX\nON ANOTHER SUBJECT\nThis is a memorandum for Haldeman -- he is to be given one copy\nand the other copy is for my xxxxxxx file -- it is not for file distribution\notherwise. That is always the case where I dictate a political\nmemorandum unless I indicate that the political memorandum is to\ngo to others.\nIn reading Lou Innin's piece in the\nSunday Washington Post I think we can get some guidance as to the\nhandling of the press on campaign matters which should be followed\nstrictly.\nI do not want people who talk about the campaign to make the\nmistake of cutting off representatives of periodicals, TV and newspapers\nsimply because they are generally against us. Consequently, I do not\nin unfriently publications\nobject to an article appearing from time to time/which is based on\nconversations with our campaign people . Having said this however we\nneed some completely ironclad rules with regard to who talks to media\nrepresentatives EXX who we know are antagonistic to us. First of all,\nit is vitally important that only the most intelligent and sophisticated\nperson on our campaign staff dare to go in the ring with one of these people.\nSecond, we should not waste time with one of them at the expense of\nturning down interviews with media representatives who are our friends.\nThird, even when our most intelligent people are meeting with people\nlike Kannon (?) they must constantly keep in mind that they are confronting\na political enemy and that everything they say will therefore be used\nagainst us. I have to emphasize this over and over again because we\n- 2 -\nnever seem to get it across to our people no matter how many times\nthey get burned.\nThe Cannon (?) piece is the best example we can have of why\nthese rules should be rigidly adhered to. In the first place while we\nknow the Washington Post is totally against us it is just as well to have\naxpiecexxa piece that has some favorable points in it as well as completely\nnegative ones. Therefore, I have no objections to the fact that Cannon\nwas given interviews with by the campaign committee. On the other\nhand, it was a stupid mistake which must never be represtadxx repeated\nto allow Cannon to have the run of the White House statt, the campaign\nstaff and the National Committee staff in getting his story together. The\nPR types representative of each of these groups must have a rule that\nwhen media representatives who are antagonistic come in for interviews,\nthey are treated courteously but that only the top political man with great\nsophistication will be allowed to talk to him. In addition, whenever that\nman talks to the interviewer the press man should sit in on the interview\nso as to keep it honest. In that connection, incidentally I was rather\nsurprised to find that we did not have XXX a recording of Clark MacGregor's\nremarks at the Press Club. It will be a very modest expense but it is\nabsenxx absolutely essential that a small recording device with a man\ngo with him everywhere he goes so that we have a record of what he says\nwhich he can put out in the event that we want to correct a misquotation\nor get out a story that was not covered adequately. The same should be\n3 -\nThe same, I think, should be true of Dole. As you know we have always\nfollowed this custom with regard to my own appearances.\nNow looking at the Cannon story from both the plus and minus\nstandpoints we find a good headline - \"Nixon Running Scared. \" And a\ngood thrust insofar as there being no complacency.\nFrom a minus standpoint, it is obvious that Cannon had the\nrun of the shop and in addition to talking to Haldeman in the White House\nand MacGregor at the Committee to Re-Elect, Dole at the Republican\nNational Committee he talked to people up and down the line and got\na numberof quotes that are both inaccurate and not helpful. I am not\nreferring, of course, to quotes that he has from Republican Senators and\nCongressmen. We have no control whatsoever over this. Rx What I am\nreferring to are quotes that he obviously had to get since he has it in\nquotationsmarks from people on the campaign staff.\nFor example, as I have often emphasized, it is a mistake\nconstantly to run down my previous campaigns. We should not contribute\nto the myth that I did not work hard enough in 1960 and 1968. The quotation\nto the effefct that before the election in November I had gotten so confident\nthat I was working on my acceptance speech, taking rests, etc., is totally\ninaccurate as you know and very harmful. With regard to MacGregor's\nown interview I would like for you and him and Dole to get together on\none point and to have rule enforced throughout the balance of thecampaign.\n- 4 -\nHe was putting out polls in California and in Texas as well as in Ohio\nand in Illinois. There is no reason why he should not do this since we\nhave not indicated what our policy was in this respect. However, under\nabsolutely no circumstancses are any polls whatever to be put out showing\nus ahead or behind in any of the major states without my specific approval.\nThis is an area where well intentioned people will put out a poll for what\nthey think is a good reason -- in this case to knock down complacency --\nbut where later on they are going to be asked if xtx xx for polls in these\nstates when they might not want to put them out. Also I don't want the\nimpression to get across the country that we are conducting our campaign\non the basis of polls rather than on the basis of principles. I want you\nspecifically to see that this is brought up at the next meeting where\nMitchell, Dole, MacGregor et al are present. Mitchell, of course,\nwould not have made this mistake. MacGregor made it only because of\nlack of experiences.\nAlong the same binexxx line, I noted where thesxx statement\nwas made that abortion was a minus issue for the President because\npkbsxxxx polls showed that a majority of women favored it. This obviously\ncomes from the Harper group in the Domestic Council Staff. I want you\nto get hold of Ehrlichman and tell him that he is to see that absolutely no\none in the Domestic Council talks to anyone in the press without his\nspecific approval and then a press man from Ron's affice is to be present.\nEhrlichman, of course, would not make such a stupid mistake and the\nonly way he can control others *** is to put a tight rein on them.\n- 5 -\nFor example, Syndlinger ran into outraged reaction the\nevening that the National Committee put out findsiox findings from\ntheir Platform Committee poll to the effect that XXXXX a majority of\nour members of the Platform Committee found out that busing was\nnot a significant issue. I want some discipline enforced in this\nrespect for reasons which should be obvious taxx even to the most\nstupid of our people.\nAnother line which we should knock down is that there is\nno grass roots support for the President and that we have to get \"volunteers\none at a time. \" This probably comes from S⁺ars or somebody in that\ngroup. The question here is not whether this may be true - and I doubt\nif it is xxbaxtxx in terms of getting volunteers one at a time - but it plays\nright into the hands of our political enemies. I could give other examples\nbut I close the memorandum with this admonition - Let's quit tackling our\nown ball carrier.\n(End of Tape)\nTHIS IS A SECOND MEMORANDUM TO HALDEMAN a P.S. on\nthe one that I had written to brikxxx him on the Washington Post story.\nIn laying down the rules that only our top people can talk to\nantagónistic media representatives and then only under the very strictest\nsurvelliance by one of the people KIXIXIX from the press office, I realize\nthat this is difficult to enforce because people at other ***** levels in\nthe campaign need a chance to express themselves and do not like the\nidea of feeling that they cannot be trusted to talk to members of the press.\nThere is an easy way to handle this. Del iberately develop occasions\nwhere they can talk to friendly representatives of the media. I real ize\nthere are not too many but on the other side of that coin our major\nproblem, as you know, is that we give about twice as much time to\nwwkeixedxxx unfriendly people as we do to friendly press people. In this\ncampaign I want this thing reversed as much as we can. One way we\ncan at least reward our friends is to give them the opportunity to talk\nto second echelon people something that we will not allow to unfriendly\npeople. This way we kill two birds with one stone. Our staffers\nwill get the satisfaction of being able to sound off about their views in\nthe campaign and in addition bur friends in the press and television will\nbe getting something that their competitizxxxxx competitors will not be\ngetting.\nThere perhaps could not be clearer proof of the difference\nbetween the kind of treatment we will get in the press and the kind of\ntreatment McGovern will get in the press than the Nixon-McGovern articles\n- b -\naxkx\nin the Sunday Post today - July 30. The rxlx Nixon article, as I\npointed out earlier in the memorandum, makes some points that we\nwant to have made but does not miss an wpp9xxxxxxxopportunity to\nmake all the negative points that are part of the mythology with regard\nto our campaigns.\nThe McGovern article by Spencer Rich, as we might expect,\nis a total puff piece. This comparison only demonstrates the wisdom\nof my advice that we have to be EXXXXXX much more careful in programming\ninterviews with unfriendly press people than we do with friendly press people.\nIncidentally, when said earlier in the\nmemorandum that I thought we should see some of the unfriendly media\npeople I meant only those who reached fairly substantial audiences that\nwe could not afford to ignore. Under no circumstances, do I want anymore\ntime wasted, for example, on John Osb orne on the left or his counterparts\non the far right. I say this not because they are against us but because\nthe audience they reach simply is not that important to us.\nend of memorandum"
}