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 Colson to Nixon RE: "Your Meeting with Secretary Connally This Afternoon" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Colson to Nixon RE: "Your Meeting with Secretary Connally This Afternoon" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Kehrli to Colson RE: "Muskie" 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/16/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26147031
label
WHSF: Contested, 53-4
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26147031
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 53-4
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Nixon RE: "Your Meeting with Secretary Connally This Afternoon" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Colson to Nixon RE: "Your Meeting with Secretary Connally This Afternoon" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 4/11/1972
From Kehrli to Colson RE: "Muskie" 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 3/16/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26147031
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e3ab03164751d82c
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
53
4
4/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Nixon RE: "Your Meeting
with Secretary Connally This Afternoon" 2pg
53
4
4/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Nixon RE: "Your Meeting
with Secretary Connally This Afternoon" 2pg
53
4
3/16/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Kehrli to Colson RE: "Muskie" 1pg.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Page 1 of 1
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
Memo
Colson to the President re: Your
4/11/92
c(Nixon)
[61]
Meeting with Secretary Connally
this Afternoon"
N-2
Memo
[copy of N-1]
4/11/72
C(Nixen)
[231]
N-3
Memo
Shultz to the President re: " 'second
[62]
3/14/72
C(Nixen)
monthly report on "Unemployment by
State"
[including attachment]
N-4
Memo
Kehrli to Colson re: "Muskie"
3/16/72
C(NIXON)
[63]
N-5
Memo
Kehrli to Ehrlichman, Colson
3/1/72
C (Nixon)
[64]
re: "Unemployment Rate - Comparison
N-6
Memo
565]
Kehrli to Colson re!" Ashbrook Candidacy" 2/2/72
C (Nixon)
N-7
Memo
JM to re! " Catholic Voting Attitudes"
1/20/72
C (NIXCN)
(66]
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
STAFF SECRETARY
83
FOLDER TITLE
PRESIDENTIAL MEMOS 1972 COLSON [III]
RESTRICTION CODES
A. Release would violate a Federal statute or Agency Policy.
E. Release would disclose trade secrets or confidential commercia 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 aw
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: Staff Secretary
Box Number:
83
Folder:
Presidential Memos - 1972 Colson [III]
Document
Disposition
61
Return
Private/Political
62
Retain
Open
63
Return
Private/Political
64
Retain
Open
65
Retain
Open
66
Retain
Open
231
Return
Private/Political
[Item N-17
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1972
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Your Meeting with Secretary
Connally This Afternoon
In connection with your meeting this afternoon with Secretary
Connally, you might find of interest some very significant data
which Sindlinger passed on to me last night. In two polls prior
to Connally's meeting with the retailers, (March 16-March 22;
March 23-March 30), we declined precipitously in political
standing. In response to the question, "If next year's Presi-
dential election were being held today, would you vote for the
reelection of President Nixon ?", we dropped to 39. 8% yes
and 29. 2% no in the first poll and in the second we continued
to decline to 37. 7% yes and 30. 8% no, our poorest showing
since early August of 1971. Following Connally's meeting with
the retailers, for which there was a high public awareness,
there was a dramatic turn around. In the poll of March 31-
April 4, the yes replies rose to 44. 6% and the no replies
declined to 25.2%. In a poll completed this past Sunday, the
yes replies rose to 49.6% and the no replies declined to 21. 6%.
Throughout this period, when respondents were asked for the
number one reason that they would not vote for the President's
reclection, approximately half cited, "not stopping inflation",
four times as large as the next most frequent response and many
times larger than the typical replies Sindlinger gets, "I am a
Democrat", "not doing a good job", etc.
2.
Sindlinger's polls always show a greater sensitivity to economic
issues than anything else because generally the interviewe r con-
centrates on economic questions before asking political questions.
Hence the respondent is generally conditioned to thinking about
the economy before expressing a political view. On the other hand,
Sindlinger has an enormous statistical base and even if his informa-
tion is distorted, the trend line would have to be regarded as a
fairly significant barometer.
Sindlinger points out that this was the most volatile swing in
public opinion since the two months preceding your August 15
statement last year. It is very unusual in his poll to show such
sharp movement in the political questions. The fact that we have
bounced back to a very strong position today, actually as high as
we have ever been, indicates that the damage was temporary
but it also indicates how explosive the food price issue is.
Sindlinger attributes the bounce-back to the Connally meeting
with retailers and the fact that food prices have indeed tapered
off in recent weeks.
To summarize Sindlinger's advice and data: (1) we have to be
very sensitive to this issue and alert to price rises, food in
particular, (2) public attitudes are very volatile today especially
on a pocketbook issue like this, and (3) political support for anyone
in today's environment is fragile.
Over the coming months we have to watch carefully for any movement
of this kind so that we can step in early, take hard, forceful action
and prevent a re-occurance of this kind of political erosion. In this
instance, we almost waited too long. It is a little unnerving to
think of the consequences had this particular cycle occurred next
October.
Also, we are not yet out of the woods on this issue. Male yes
responses continue to run significantly higher than female; there
is still a spread, although not as big as it was a month ago. The
spread between male and female support suggests that the food price
issue is still alive. In short, we have to keep jawboning and/or take
whatever other steps are necessary to at least demonstrate to the
public that we are not going to let food prices rise.
[Item N-2]
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
April 11, 1972
THE PRESIDENT HAS SEEN
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Your Meeting with Secretary
Connally This Afternoon
In connection with your meeting this afternoon with Secretary
Connally, you might find of interest some very significant data
which Sindlinger passed on to me last night. In two polls prior
to Connally's meeting with the retailers, (March 16-March 22;
March 23-March 30), we declined precipitously in political
standing. In response to the question, "If next year's Presi-
dential election were being held today, would you vote for the
reelection of President Nixon?", we dropped to 39. 8% yes
and 29. 2% no in the first poll and in the second we continued
to decline to 37. 7% yes and 30. 8% no, our poorest showing
since early August of 1971. Following Connally's meeting with
the retailers, for which there was a high public awareness,
there was a dramatic turn around. In the poll of March 31-
April 4, the yes replies rose to 44. 6% and the no replies
declined to 25.2%. In a poll completed this past Sunday, the
yes replies rose to 49. 6% and the no replies declined to 21. 6%.
Throughout this period, when respondents were asked for the
number one reason that they would not vote for the President's
reelection, approximately half cited, "not stopping inflation",
four times as large as the next most frequent response and many
times larger than the typical replies Sindlinger gets, "I am a
Democrat", "not doing a good job", etc.
2.
Sindlinger's polls always show a greater sensitivity to economic
issues than anything else because generally the interviewe r con-
centrates on economic questions before asking political questions.
Hence the respondent is generally conditioned to thinking about
the economy before expressing a political view. On the other hand,
Sindlinger has an enormous statistical base and even if his informa-
tion is distorted, the trend line would have to be regarded as a
fairly significant barometer.
Sindlinger points out that this was the most volatile swing in
public opinion since the two months preceding your August 15
statement last year. It is very unusual in his poll to show such
sharp movement in the political questions. The fact that we have
bounced back to a very strong position today, actually as high as
we have ever been, indicates that the damage was temporary
but it also indicates how explosive the food price issue is.
Sindlinger attributes the bounce-back to the Connally meeting
with retailers and the fact that food prices have indeed tapered
off in recent weeks.
To summarize Sindlinger's advice and data: (1) we have to be
very sensitive to this issue and alert to price rises, food in
particular, (2) public attitudes are very volatile today especially
on a pocketbook issue like this, and (3) political support for anyone
in today's environment is fragile.
Over the coming months we have to watch carefully for any movement
of this kind so that we can step in early, take hard, forceful action
and prevent a re-occurance of this kind of political erosion. In this
instance, we almost waited too long. It is a little unnerving to
think of the consequences had this particular cycle occurred next
October.
Also, we are not yet out of the woods on this issue. Male yes
responses continue to run significantly higher than female; there
is still a spread, although not as big as it was a month ago. The
spread between male and female support suggests that the food price
issue is still alive. In short, we have to keep jawboning and/or take
whatever other steps are necessary to at least demonstrate to the
public that we are not going to let food prices rise.
[Item N-4]
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
March 16, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVELY CONFIDENTIAL
MEMORANDUM FOR:
CHUCK COLSON
FROM:
BRUCE KEHRLI
BAK
SUBJECT:
Muskie
The March 15 News Summary contained the following note on Muskie:
-- There was an "atmosphere of panic" from his head-
quarters. Besides his sobbing over Loeb, "his left
eye twitched nervously and his hands shook uncontrol-
lably during the New Hampshire TV debate. "--
It was noted that Senator Muskie may have an emotional problem as
evidenced by the above.
CC: H.R. Haldeman
Alexander P. Butterfield