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 Magruder RE: a proposed ballot measure to lower the drinking age in California. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/25/1972
Copy of a memo from Hallett to Colson RE: Republican political operations in California. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/19/1972
From Colson to Higby RE: Bob Dole's comments on the White House. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 1/15/1972
From Colson to Higby RE: an attached list and problems within the Republican Party. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/10/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the results of a recent Harris poll involving RN and the various Democratic hopefuls for the presidential nomination. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/11/1972
From Colson to Higby RE: problems with the RNC. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/5/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data on New England. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/6/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data on New England. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/6/1972
From Colson to Malek RE: Bob Hill's decision to run for governor of New Hampshire. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/5/1971
From Colson to "The Staff Secretary" RE: political activity among younger Americans. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/3/1972
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26144703
label
WHSF: Contested, 4-34
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26144703
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Contested, 4-34
description
This file contains:
From Colson to Magruder RE: a proposed ballot measure to lower the drinking age in California. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/25/1972
Copy of a memo from Hallett to Colson RE: Republican political operations in California. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/19/1972
From Colson to Higby RE: Bob Dole's comments on the White House. 1 pg. [Subject: White House Staff] [Memo], 1/15/1972
From Colson to Higby RE: an attached list and problems within the Republican Party. 2 pgs. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/10/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the results of a recent Harris poll involving RN and the various Democratic hopefuls for the presidential nomination. 4 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/11/1972
From Colson to Higby RE: problems with the RNC. 1 pg. [Subject: Domestic Policy] [Memo], 1/5/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data on New England. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/6/1972
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data on New England. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/6/1972
From Colson to Malek RE: Bob Hill's decision to run for governor of New Hampshire. 1 pg. [Subject: Campaign] [Report], 1/5/1971
From Colson to "The Staff Secretary" RE: political activity among younger Americans. 2 pgs. [Subject: Campaign] [Memo], 1/3/1972
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Contested Materials Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26144703
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
e658a66d92f0766a
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
Contested Materials Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
34
1/25/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Magruder RE: a proposed
ballot measure to lower the drinking age in
California. 1 pg.
4
34
1/19/1972
Campaign
Memo
Copy of a memo from Hallett to Colson RE:
Republican political operations in California.
1 pg.
4
34
1/15/1972
White House Staff
Memo
From Colson to Higby RE: Bob Dole's
comments on the White House. 1 pg.
4
34
1/10/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Higby RE: an attached list
and problems within the Republican Party. 2
pgs.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Page 1 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
34
1/11/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: the results of
a recent Harris poll involving RN and the
various Democratic hopefuls for the
presidential nomination. 4 pgs.
4
34
1/5/1972
Domestic Policy
Memo
From Colson to Higby RE: problems with the
RNC. 1 pg.
4
34
1/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data
on New England. 1 pg.
4
34
1/6/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to Haldeman RE: polling data
on New England. 1 pg.
4
34
1/5/1971
Campaign
Report
From Colson to Malek RE: Bob Hill's
decision to run for governor of New
Hampshire. 1 pg.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
No Date
Subject
Document Type
Document Description
4
34
1/3/1972
Campaign
Memo
From Colson to "The Staff Secretary" RE:
political activity among younger Americans.
2 pgs.
Friday, August 20, 2010
Page 3 of 3
zum
CONFIDENTIAL
January 25, 1972
ADMINISTRATIVE MARKING
E.O. 11005, Section 6-102
By you NARS, Dat 2/33/82
MEMORANDUM FOR:
JEB MAGRUDER
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
Purely by accident, I learned recently of a movement to get
on the California ballot a proposition which would lower the
age for beer and wine drinking to 18. Our friends turned it
off, thinking -- correctly, in my view -- that such a propo-
sition would encourage young people to vote more frequently
than they might otherwise. It has occurred to me that similar
propositions might show up in other states -- or measures on
other matters which might conceivably affect voter turnout and,
consequently, the chances of the President. We should, I think,
be alert to similar developments in other states.
MEMORANDUM
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
19 January 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR CHARLES W. COLSON
FROM DOUG HALLETT
DAS
Do me a favor and show this one to the President - I talked to Bill
agley: my state assemblyman in California and the state's best mind
in general on government/political stuff, today. Bill 1S very concerned
that we are letting the campaign out there fall into the hands of the Reagan
Right. He's being circumspect and says he'll do headstands in Dubuque,
Iowa if the President's reelection depends on it, but thinks we're making
a terrible mistake in not broadening the base out there a little more.
Being one who recommended giving California to Reagan, Iagree. I
think we can and should exact something in return for it unless we
want to kill any Republican activity to the left of Lyn Nofziger. I think
1972 could be a disaster if we don't - and 1974, the way it's going now,
is going to make 1958 in California look like a picnic.
By the way, Bill is very interested in a job back here - probably
after the election. Anybody who knows anything about California can
assure you that he's qualified for something at the subcabinet level -
one of the ASsistant AG stbts would be perfect if something is still open.
There is nobody brighter in state government and Bill has put together
a legislative record that is, according to California political historians
I know, second to none in the state's history.
January 15, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LARRY HIGBY
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Attached column
Maybe Bob would like to see a copy of the attached that was just
sent to me by a friend.
This is the third time that Bob Dole has done this to us. He
loves to blame the White House Staff for planting things in the
press (which I know not one instance of); but he still continues
to stick it into us publicly. It's absurd. Needless to say, I
have written him about this.
Maybe his personal problems account for all of this and, if they
are now settled, he may be a little easier to live with.
January 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LARRY HIGBY
FROM:
CHUCK COLSON
SUBJECT:
Attached List
I find that I am increasingly being the guy that throws the turd
into the punch bowl on almost everything going on. I, therefore,
would like to pass a thought on to you. Give it to Haldeman if
you want and blame me if you want, although pretty soon you're
going to think I'm poking my nose into everybody's business.
In connection with trying to find one man in each of the non-key
states who could be a good political contact as well as a mover and
shaker, we asked Al Kaupinen and Harry Flemming to give us their
list of people.
Attached is what they gave us. I could have done much better out of
my own head than this and obviously 95 percent of this could have
been gotten from the Congressional Directory. It is really a terribly
amateurish nothing. I'm not complaining about this instance because
we were able to go back through our own people and get what we needed.
That's not the point. The point is that those guys do not have a political
organization. God knows what they have been doing, but it is increasingly
clear to me that they are simply taking some of the obvious names and
relying on them rather than trying to develop a structure of independents,
possible Democratic converts and/or new fresh faces. They're just
dealing with the same obvious guys that the National Committee deals
with.
This leads to one of their major problems which is that they are dupli-
cating the National Committee efforts which will cause a lot of the
regular organization people to be offended and sit on their hands. There
will be #heinevitable rivalries and jealousies between the Nixon organi-
zation and the National Committee structure. The key is to keep the two
2.
separate as was brilliantly done in the 1956 campaign. Citizens should
be appealing to an entirely different constituency. The National Com-
mittee should be building up its own regular organization.
I'm afraid that this little exercise this week showed that we really
have made no progress in that direction and that we really aren't
developing anything very imaginative organizationally. This, of
course, is what I've heard from many sources and am discovering
myself the more deeply I get into it.
I went into this at great length with Malek today explaining my own views,
largely based upon experience over the years. I have seen this happen
before.
Perhaps I should talk to Bob about this sometime or I will try, if I can
get a few minutes, to do a very analytical memo or maybe the best thing
is for you to simply mention the problem to him.
January 11, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Latest Harris Poll
The latest Harris Poll was conducted December 28 through January 4
(ironically I urged this date upon Harris. I obviously did not know
that the bombing was going to be resumed during the week after
Christmas. My preference for the week was based upon the fact
that we had a lot of good year-end stuff, good TV the week before
Christmas and that we had really put the Congress down -- a point
that was coming through in the media. I was also influenced by the
Time "Man of the Year" Award. In any event, it turned out to be a
very bad call time-wise).
On the trial heats it is Nixon 42, Muskie 42, Wallace 11. In a two way
race, it is Muskie 48, Nixon 45. The Wallace vote, in other words,
takes 2 away from Muskie for every one he takes away from us. Harris
will not publish this information. He gives it to us for our guidance but
agreed with me that it would be better not printed. It should be noted
that all year long it has been the conclusion from the Harris data that
Wallace was hurting Muskie more than us.
Harris will print the Muskie trial heat next week. We had discussed
whether it would be better to wait awhile, but then we should get it out
of the way, hopefully letting the President rise again in the polls the
next time around. My thought was that it would be very bad to have
this come out in February because people look at the publication date,
they don't look at the date the poll was taken.
Against other candidates, our standing is relatively unchanged. It
is Nixon 46, Humphrey 37, Wallace 12 and, in a two way race, Nixon 51,
Humphrey 40. Against Kennedy, it is Nixon 45, Kennedy 39, Wallace 10,
and, in a two way race, Nixon 50, Kennedy 41.
In the case of the Muskie gain, the big shift has taken place in the $15, 000
and over category the white professional upper middle class suburban-
ites. In early November, we were 53-37 over Muskie with this vote.
Now it is 45-42. We only have a slight lead. This once again, has been
all year long the most volatile group. It swings back and forth. Muskie
is the only Democrat who can make inroads with this group and when-
ever he does he surges ahead in the polls. Neither the Kennedy-Humtphrey
or any of the others seem to be able to make any dent in this group which
is critical to us and which is growing by leaps and bounds.
There was also a shift with the young people. Undoubtedly it was attri-
butable to the bombing. We lost a little bit of ground in rural areas
which Harris believes could be the bad attitude among small farmers
at the moment.
Harris attributes all of this to the India-Pakistan situation, as to the
handling of which we have a 28 positive and 48 negative rating. This
is very low, particularly in a foreign policy area where we have come
out the strongest in all of the Harris ratings. Significantly all of the
other foreign policy ratings are down as well. Harris' theory is that
when we are affected badly in one foreign policy area it rubs off on all
others. On handling Vietnam it is 40 positive, 54 negative. Working
for peace in the world is now 51 positive, 44 negative. It was in
September 64 positive, 34 negative. In the foreign policy ratings,
there are large "not sures" indicating there has been a real slippage
here.
Harris does not believe, with the exception of the young voter, that the
bombings caused the problem; he argues that it was India-Pakistan.
Personally I disagree with him although he supports his case by pointing
out that on handling Vietnam we did not show the same deterioration we
did in all other areas. Harris believes that people got concerned over
India-Pakistan, that maybe it would upset our initiatives with China and
Russia and the general idea of achieving peace in the world. This is
where he feels we were hurt. Also, the college educated, higher income
groups would be much more sensitive to the sophisticated issues involved
in the India-Pakistan controversy.
Just for purposes of comparison, in the over $15,000 group the President
beats Kennedy 57-32 and Humphrey 56-29. It is in this area that the
entire difference with our standing, vis a vis, Muskie, can be found.
3.
Also this is a group which does turn out to vote and which, as I pointed
out, is an increasing share of the electorate. Hence, it can be critically
important and there is a good lesson from all of this. That is, that
Muskie is the one Democrat who can seriously penetrate this group.
On the positive-negative rating, we have dropped from 53-46 to 49-47.
Harris will not feature this in a column but will bury it in statistics
in a column relating to something else. It should be noted that this is
not really much of a decline. All of the published Harris poll data of
recent weeks has related to a combination of two polls. One taken the
last week in October and one taken in the second week in November.
We suffered a precipitous decline in between the two polls and rather
than show us up one week and down the next, Harris, at my suggestion,
combined the poll data. Hence, the 53-47 was really a lot better than
where we actually were in mid-November. In the November poll, if
that were broken out separately, we actually had about a 49-47 rating
or just what we had in the latest poll.
There was some bright news on the economy. In all categories he showed
significant improvement. For example, on the key question "Are the
Nixon economic policies keeping the economy healthy", in July we
were 22 positive, 73 negative. In November, 34 positive, 60 negative
and now in the latest January poll, 38 positive and 56 negative -- still
not good but the trend is coming up very well. In terms of keeping
unemployment down we now get a 26 positive, 66 negative (in July it
was 16 positive, 77 negative). For the first time in two years, a majority
do not think that prices are rising more rapidly than before. In response
to the question "Is the country in a recession?", today 49 percent say
yes, 33 no. In November, it was 56 yes, 27 no. In August it was
62 yes, 24 no; In March it was 65 yes and 21 no. Again, the figures
aren't good, but the trend is excellent. A majority feel now that there
will not be a recession next year by a 35-31 score. This is a complete
reversal of the response received to the same question last summer.
The key question politically on the economy is "Are the Nixon economic
policies doing more good than harm?" The reply to that is now 48 doing
more good than harm, 27 doing more harm than good. Once again, a
complete reversal from the position last summer.
Of passing interest, people by a 66 to 20 margin favor keeping controls
for another year. Harris honestly believes that Muskie's rise in the polls
4.
is a temporary "blif". The fact that he appears to have a lot of momentum
(and in Harris' opinion does have a lot of momentum) has been getting a
lot of publicity and doing very well in terms of his public image contrasted
with an unsettling period in foreign affairs for us has brought him even
with us again, but Harris does not feel it will last because on the issues
and on handling the key issues we turn out much better.
Harris believes the following to be most significant:
Which candidates do you believe can do a better job with respect to the
following issues?
Nixon
Muskie
Wallace
None
Not Sure
Working for peace
39
34
8
3
16
Keeping the economy healthy
38
32
8
3
19
End to Vietnam fastest
36
30
11
4
19
Trust most personally as the
man in the White House
36
33
9
4
18
Keep down taxes and spending
35
29
10
6
20
Race and civil rights
30
34
14
3
19
Solving problems of the poor
30
35
10
4
21
Crime - law and order
31
30
18
3
18
Air and water pollution
31
36
8
4
21
Health and education
34
34
9
2
21
NOTE: The foregoing was dictated by Mr. Colson over the telephone. It
is very rough and rambling but at least gives the raw data of the latest
Harris sample.
January 5, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
LARRY HIGBY
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Your Memo of December 14
In response to your memo of December 14, copy attached, Lofton
apparently had the final say on the cover of Monday of December 13.
Thus far I have been spectacularly unsuccessful in getting Nofziger
or any of his crew to budget at all. We do not now have control over
what goes into Monday and we won't get it until somebody up there
understands the rules of the game. I have tried but we are effectively
ignored. If you think you can get anywhere with Nofziger, please try.
I have the very uncomfortable feeling that that operation is not being
controlled by anyone and what's worse, no one really seems concerned
about it.
The key is obviously who we put in. I talked to Freeman and he is
definitely not interested in anything. As he puts it, if he would do
anything he would go to the White House; that's his first choice. He
would have no interest in the Committee.
I think it's a very high priority that we find a man to replace Nofziger
and that he be our man. Perhaps Malek could be asked to look for
someone quickly. As you remember, I raised this with Bob who said
he wanted to take it up with the Attorney General. Obviously that's
great, but let's get it rolling if we can.
Yesterday was a classic example. I sent Karalekas to the Committee
after getting Dole's approval on Muskie's statement. He personally
supervised the printing and distribution and then had messengers deliver
it. It was on the wires within an hour and a half and 3 hours before its
release time it was out. The Committee has never done this on their
own, hard as that may be to believe.
EYES ONLY
January 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
H.R. HALDEMAN
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
New England Poll Data
Attached is some current New England poll data. This was
given to me by my polister friend John Becker who took it
from poll data done for Governor Peterson. Hence we ob-
viously have to not circulate it. This is just for your infor-
mation.
EYES ONLY
January 6, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
New England Poll Data
I thought you might like to have the attached poll data that John
Becker gave me yesterday. He gave me all of this out of a poll
taken for Governor Peterson so we obviously have to treat it
very discreetly.
January 5, 1971
MEMORANDUM FOR:
FRED MALEK
FROM:
CHUCK COLSON
Bob Hill has just resigned as Ambassador to Spain to run
for Governor of New Hampshire. Hill is recognized as one
of the most solid Nixon loyalists in New Hampshire. Hill is
recognized as one of the most solid Nixon loyalists in New
Hampshire. He may well defeat the Governor in the Primary
but the results will be harmful to both the President and the
Republican Party. New Hampshire Republicans are notorious
for cannibalizing one another.
What complicates the present situation is that the Governor,
a liberal Republican has endorsed the President, although some
of the people are being coy about McCloskey. When Hill, a
Nixon loyalist, tackles the Governor this may jeopardize support
for us from the Governor and his friends. It is, to say the least,
an awkward situation. Hill believes that Peterson could be
enticed not to run for reelection, thereby giving Hill a clear shot
at the field and without a primary most political observors feel
Hill would be elected Governor. He believes and I have no way
of confirming this, that Peterson would accept any federal appoint-
ment; that he is fed up with the governorship and would like a grace-
ful way out.
This should not be explored without approval of the Attorney General
obviously. But if he agrees it should then be of a very high political
priority. I do not know who would approach the governor or how it
would be done, but I am sure Mitchell has ways of accomplishing it.
Assuming he agrees, it should be done you can then find him a
suitable spot.
January 3, 1972
MEMORANDUM FOR:
THE STAFF SECRETARY
FROM:
CHARLES COLSON
SUBJECT:
Action Memo #P-1957
Young Voters
Request
It was requested in Presidential Action Memorandum P-1957, taken
from the December 6, 1971, News Summary, report on the National
Youth Caucus held in Chicago, that I advise the President on:
1. My analysis of our youth group activity, and
2. Administration participants and observers.
Response
1. The Rietz group seems to be making some progress along the lines
Rietz outlined in his report. An active speakers' program -- coor-
dinated with my office is already underway. Field work has been
undertaken in New Hampshire (2 full-time people plus the youth group's
college director), Florida (one full-timer), and California (one full-
timer). The Florida demonstration registration project went well and
has been extended to New Hampshire, California, Tennessee and Texas.
Convention plans are also procedding.
While I have not seen as much activity out of 1701 as I would like, I
think they are beginning to make some progress.
2. The Committee to Reelect the President did have an observer at the
Caucus by the name of John P. Venners. Jack Caulfield also had an
observer. Both observers filed very complete reports.
2.
As to participants, Venners attempted to get Congressman Crane,
Mayor Luger, Senator Brock and Representative Preyer on the
program with no success.
The organizers (primarily ADA staff members led by Allard
Lowenstein) turned down all requests. The Caucus was obviously
a "Dump Nixon" movement and there was no desire to present a
balanced viewpoint.
While we were unable to get on the program, Venners was successful
in disrupting the Caucus by instigating a Black Caucus walk-out.