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 Safire to Haldeman RE: "Critique of First Campaign Swing" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/28/1972
From McLaughlin to Haldeman RE: "RN's Campaigning in New York and California" 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/28/1972
From Price to Haldeman RE: "New York - California Trip" 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/28/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26147061
label
WHSF: Contested, 53-19
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26147061
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 53-19
description
This file contains:
From Safire to Haldeman RE: "Critique of First Campaign Swing" 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/28/1972
From McLaughlin to Haldeman RE: "RN's Campaigning in New York and California" 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/28/1972
From Price to Haldeman RE: "New York - California Trip" 3 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 9/28/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26147061
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
d1051b284bda3324
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
53
19
9/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Safire to Haldeman RE: "Critique of
First Campaign Swing" 2 pg
53
19
9/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From McLaughlin to Haldeman RE: "RN's
Campaigning in New York and California" 3
pg
53
19
9/28/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Price to Haldeman RE: "New York -
California Trip" 3pg
Monday, June 18, 2012
Page 1 of 1
Presidential Materials Review Board
Review on Contested Documents
Collection: Staff Secretary
Box Number:
90
Folder:
Campaign [II]
Document
Disposition
1
Retain Open
2
Retain
Open
3
Retain
Open
4
Retain
Open
5
Return
Private/Political
6
Return
Private/Political
7
Return
Private/Political
DOCUMENT WITHDRAWAL RECORD [NIXON PROJECT]
DOCUMENT
DOCUMENT
NUMBER
TYPE
SUBJECT/TITLE OR CORRESPONDENTS
DATE
RESTRICTION
N-1
memo
Kehrli to Price re: "Vermont Royster
10/13/72
(Nixon)
(Doc.H)
Comments".
N.2
memo
Moore to Kehrli re: "Presidential
10/4/72
c(Nixon)
[Doc"2]
Posture During Next Six weeks
N-3
memo
Kehrli to Haldeman 'e'. "Vermont
10/10/72
C (Nixon)
[0x #3]
Royster Comments".
N-4
memo
BAK to RN re: comments.
9/29/72
c(Nixon)
[Doca4]
N-5
Memo
safire to Haldeman re: "Critique of
9/28/72
( (Nixon)
[Dx#5]
First Campaign swing".
N-6
memo
mcLaughlin to Haldeman 're: RN's
9/28/72
(Nixon)
[DOC H6]
Campaigning in New york and
California".
N-7
memo
Price to Haldeman re: "NewYork-
9/28/72
C (Nixon)
[DDCH7]
California trip".
FILE GROUP TITLE
BOX NUMBER
STAFF SECRETARY
90
FOLDER TITLE
Campaign [II]
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)
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1972.
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H. R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
BILL SAFIRE
RE:
Critique of First Campaign Swing
If we were in any sort of contest, the first two days' campaigning
would be cause for alarm.
These were the impressions a normal person would get from the
activities:
1. The President went out to raise money. The huge head-
line in the New York Daily News, no liberal bastion, was "Nixon In
Town To Raise Funds. 11 Since over 2 million copies of that headline
circulated in an area of 15 million people, it can be safely said that
the negative message got across to the greater metropolitan area.
In Washington, the Star headline was "Nixon Raises $7 Million" and
that carried also on radio and TV. On the positive side, the young
people theme at the dinner went well.
The other story in New York, the Statue of Liberty visit,
got good pictures but a bad play. The demonstrators left a bad taste.
What I saw on television was a fairly obvious message from the
President about how patriotic immigrants are -- very political, no
uplift. Looked like a cover to his fundraising appearance.
The meeting with Jewish leaders came across well, with the
"no harsh confrontation" theme predominant.
2. The President was apologizing for not campaigning. That's
for others to say; not like Nixon to apologize the way he did in San
Francisco and made the UP lead.
-2-
3. The President talked spending in San Francisco and holding
down spending in LA. This impression created by Broder story and
headline -- "Nixon Promises Spending, Thrift" -- but he influenced a
lot of other writers and broadcasters.
4. The thing wasn't in focus. Other stories dominated --
Kissinger in Paris, the POWs on the way home. Seemed like the
campaign was being conducted in Europe.
Some lessons to be drawn:
1. Fundraising appearances at this stage are a great big mistake;
the dead audience calls for an infusion of yelling kids, and the money
could have been raised with a Presidential film at the dinners. Our fat
cat image grows, and we do not appear to care. Fortunately, the other
side doesn't know how to exploit it without seeming envious.
2. High-intensity, 17-hour campaign days preceded and followed
by relative news calm make our campaign look herky-jerky. We do not
have a stride, nor are we explaining what our campaign rhythm is; as
soon as the poll difference begins to narrow, this kind of sporadic
campaigning will be interpreted as "Nixon, worried about the latest poll
showing McGovern momentum, cast aside his above-the-battle pose
and plunged into
etc."
3. We're not campaigning for anything. The "four more years"
chant is offensive. We know that people vote against, and we should
help them be against McGovern and what he stands for; but the best way
to be "Presidential" which is our best attitude -- is to carry a
positive line. Some of this was in the fundraising dinner speech,
especially toward the end, but the only way I know that is because I
asked for a text. "The" speech is not yet with us.
[Itre 11.6]
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
JOHN McLAUGHLIN
Twel
SUBJECT:
RN's Campaigning in
New York and California
1.) Statue of Liberty. The physical presence of RN with the ethnics
was politically very lucrative. Faces of ethnics on the television screen,
like the old Jewish man with the yarmulke, and their association with
the President at the scene -- first rate. The verbal tussle between RN
supporters ("Four More Years") and the militants ("Stop The War")
favorable to the President because of the higher decibels of the RN
supporters. The physical tussle between the two elements worked to
RN's advantage too, providing drainage to millions of Americans who
feel an irritated sense of surfeit with the demonstrators. RN's remon-
strance, by indirection, to the television producers to focus not only on
the handful of militants but on the thousand others gathered here was said
perfectly: RN smiled as he made the very clear point. This segment on
the ethnics took the edge off the wires' heavy coverage of CREP filling its
coffers, and Dan Rather's stress on the $40 million incremented by the
28 dinners. Two minor minuses: RN sounded a trifle angry when talking
about ethnics believing in hard work, not a handout. RN should avoid the
appearance of irritation. Secondly, I would have liked to have seen him
warmer with the people, as happened with the Italians and the Scalobrini
Fathers. Obiter Dicta: The "Jews For Nixon" sign on the TV screen
(two networks) priceless; Machin's comment that RN appears to have the
ethnic vote which he never had before, also very valuable.
2.) Labor Leaders. Another very remunerative sequence. There is simply
no substitute for the direct talk of Gleason and Brennan. One leader made
the point that labor supported Rockefeller, despite Rockefeller's wealth;
therefore, there's no reason why they can't support RN, since RN doesn't
have Rockefeller's wealth. This language has no substitute: It grabs the
working man where he lives. Minor Minus: In this sequence, too, RN
looked a trifle too restrained. I would like to have seen more give-and-
take with the labor leaders, more warmth.
-2-
3.) San Francisco. The BART sequence good, and reminiscent of the sight-
seeing in Peking. An imaginative piece of politicking, associating RN with
transportation innovation pictorially. Here again, however, RN would have
benefited by meshing more with the crowd, not immersing himself in the
flesh, but more contact than we saw on the screen.
4.) The Basic Strategy: For RN McGovern Doesn't Exist. Excepting
Rather's forced comment that RN had attacked McGovern by the "confiscation
of wealth" charge, the media play on New York and California left the im-
pression that for RN McGovern doesn't exist. I think this strategy is absolutely
sound and wise for this point in the campaign, and quite probably right through
to the election. In his remarks, I would like to see more blue sky from RN,
more stress on the future, more vision. On the issues, my feeling is that
RN should avoid prose and modes of presentation of self that might suggest
that he is confronting a McGovern allegation. (McGovern's single high
point in an otherwise catastrophic campaign was his timing of his statement
on drugs, creating an impression that RN was smoked out into a rebuttal. )
5.) Surrogates. The surrogate program is theoretically sound. There are
practical problems with it, however, the chief of which is diffusion. RN
can only maintain his "above-the-battle" stance, if his surrogates get media
attention, not just locally (where they are getting considerable), but nationally.
I see problems with nationally pick-up of surrogates: 1.) Mankiewicz is
leaning on the networks to restrict their surrogate coverage, since the sur-
rogate is not the candidate. 2.) Focus for the surrogate's national coverage
appears lacking, i.e., with several surrogates in the field on a given day,
the networks are given the license to select which surrogate to cover, and also
their production task is increased. If the media could be trained to expect
a prime surrogate response, we would be guaranteed that the subjects we
want addressed, will indeed be addressed, thus taking away the power of
selection from the networks. Recommendation: Provide focus for a daily
prime surrogate response by establishing one platform, preferably the
White House press briefing room. This would draw the surrogate and his
political expressions closer to the President and in so doing help ease us by
Mankiewicz's objection. Secondly, it would give us the control and national
media power to blunt any momentum that McGovern may develop. The margin
is going to shrink, as happens uniformly in Presidential races when the
trailing contender is the candidate of the majority party. This movement
can be contained, however, if the surrogates on national media confront,
challenge, harass McGovern daily and demonstrate how RN's program in
any given area is superior. I know that extensive discussion has taken place
-3-
on the political problems entailed in having a surrogate appear in the
White House press room itself. Doubtless there is some substance to
these concerns; nevertheless, I think we are hypersensitive in this regard.
If the WH press room is unacceptable, then CREP might serve but in my
view it would be a distinct second choice.
Conclusion: RN's campaign strategy is right on target and the visits to
New York and California were both strong gains. The mechanism of the
surrogate program needs some modulating, but its theory is excellent.
(Of Note: In a visit to Notre Dame this week, I learned that the students
straw polled as follows: 1700 RN, 1500 McGovern and about 500 undecided.
In Rhode Island, RN's 50th State in 1968, a private Becker poll (an excellent
pollster who proved to be right on target in my own race) showed RN last week
leading McG. better than 2 to 1.)
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
September 28, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FROM:
RAY PRICE
BOB HALDEMAN 7002
SUBJECT:
New York-California trip
I don't really have a strong impression of the trip; such as I have
is made up from what I happened to catch on the evening news,
and read in the paper or the news summary -- thus it includes
nothing of whatever may have been the local impact.
It didn't seem to me to have a great deal of impact -- but that
fact, at this point, is not all bad. We wanted, after all, to mini-
mize the attention paid to the $1000-a-plate dinners.
One general impression I've been getting is that news coverage
of the campaign this year is inordinately -- more so than before
-- focused on the techniques of the campaign; not just in the
coverage of us, but in the coverage of McGovern as well. Reporters
seem to feel a greater compulsion than before, in reporting what
the candidate said or did, to analyze why he did it this way, how
it fits into his campaign strategy, etc. To a considerable extent,
this is legitimate and responsible reporting: after all, the tech-
niques of the campaign are an important part of the story, even
though we'd rather not have them reported on when the focus is
on us (though we like it when the focus is on McGovern). Thinking
back impressionistically rather than scientifically over the report-
ing on this trip, it seems as if a great deal of it was focused on
the busing in of crowds to provide backdrop for the cameras, the
stationing of young people to cheer, the assembling of ethnic
groups at Liberty Island, etc. ; in short, this may be the year
when, in effect, the advance man is pulled out into the spotlight.
McGovern has gotten the same treatment: there's been heavy
reporting of his staging events for the cameras, etc.
-2-
There's nothing we can do about the fact of this kind of reporting,
but it looks as though we're going to have to take it pretty cen-
trally into account in planning the rest of the campaign. One thing
it probably means is that we should lean toward less rather than
more contrivance. Another effect may be to make the White House
comparatively more desirable (as against the road show) as a place
from which to conduct the campaign, and real events more desirable
as compared with manufactured events. It may also argue for
comparatively greater emphasis on such things as written state-
ments and formal (or radio or TV) speeches.
Vermont Royster had little in the way of specific comments on the
trip; he noted that he's simply seen "bits and pieces on TV, 11 plus
what he'd read in the papers -- his general impression was that it
"came off okay. 11
Reflecting on his understanding that it had received pretty heavy
coverage in those places where the President was, but that the
rest of the country had gotten only "snippets in the morning paper,
or on CBS or ABC, 11 he said he thought we should look for one or
two occasions when he can get "a lot of public exposure all over the
country in one hunk. 11
When I talked with him, I'd already written the comments above
and I asked whether as an old-time newsman he'd had the same
impression about the focus of coverage this year on techniques. He
leaped to it, said absolutely, and that in fact he's taking part in a
panel next month in which "that's precisely the point I'm making. 11
He plans to cite as an example the coverage of McGovern's speech
to the security analysts -- "the stories I saw down here all had long
stories about his appearance, about the reaction of the security
analysts, about George going into the lion's den -- but none told
me what he'd said -- they were all writing about the mechanics
of the campaign.
I'm having a hard time keeping up with George,
with what he's saying. " And on the President's visit to the Statue
of Liberty -- "I guess he made a speech, but I don't know what he
said. Four or five people started a little furor, and all the
-3-
cameras turned on them. 11 So, he suggests, we've got to find a
way of getting the focus on what he's saying -- which he thinks
is one advantage of the formal speech, "the kind of thing you
force the New York Times to carry the text of. "
He also had some additional thoughts unrelated to the trip, which
I'll pass along in a separate memo.
###