← 036-108036-110 →

Conversation 036-109

TapeTape 36StartWednesday, January 24, 1973 at 7:52 PMEndWednesday, January 24, 1973 at 7:55 PMParticipantsNixon, Richard M. (President);  Haldeman, H. R. ("Bob")Recording deviceWhite House Telephone
AI Summary

President Nixon directs H. R. Haldeman to convene a meeting with John Ehrlichman, George Shultz, and Charles Colson to discuss shifting the administration's public relations focus from the recent Vietnam settlement to domestic budget issues. Nixon cautions against prioritizing the budget debate, fearing it would allow political opponents to pivot away from the Vietnam issue where they are currently on the defensive. He requests that Colson attend the meeting to provide a perspective aligned with Labor Secretary Peter Brennan’s warnings against engaging in domestic battles on the opponents' terms.

Vietnam WarFederal BudgetPublic RelationsPolitical StrategyDomestic Policy
AudioNARA Description

On January 24, 1973, President Richard M. Nixon and H. R. ("Bob") Haldeman talked on the telephone from 7:52 pm to 7:55 pm. The White House Telephone taping system captured this recording, which is known as Conversation 036-109 of the White House Tapes.

Nixon Library Finding Aid
Conversation No. 36-109

Date: January 24, 1973
Time: 7:52 pm - 7:55 pm
Location: White House Telephone

The President talked with H. R. (“Bob”) Haldeman.

       Haldeman’s meeting
            -John D. Ehrlichman
            -Charles W. Colson
            -George P. Shultz
            -Focus of public attention
                  -Budget
                  -The President’s view
            -Peter J. Brennan’s statement
                  -The President’s Vietnam settlement announcement
Transcript (AI-Generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Do not cite this transcript as authoritative. Consult the Finding Aid above for verified information.

The point that I'd like for you to raise at your meeting with Ehrlichman and Schultz and those people in the morning, and I think you should get Colson in on it too on this one, invite him in, is really the advisability of our deliberately trying to move the focus of attention from the Vietnam thing to
the budget at this point and the the device thing which of course was quite apparent in the cabinet meeting today now it's a it's it's a very close call but it's a one that we've got to know what the hell we're doing and uh you see what what's really involved here is this that
uh i know this battle is going to come up and we've got to fight it the question is whether we fight it now or whether we send the damn thing up then have to fight it later but if we move now
We are giving our opponents a chance to get off of an issue they'd much rather not talk about.
Do you understand?
Yeah.
They don't want to talk about this.
They'd much rather not be talking about Vietnam because they're on the defensive and get on an issue which they'd much rather talk about.
In other words, the whole issue of our withholding funds from the school milk and all the rest.
And that's the thing that John and George also may not have thought through.
You see what I mean?
That's the basic thing I'm concerned about.
In a curious way, Brennan raised this at the Cabinet meeting today.
He didn't raise it in this context.
He didn't know what we were thinking.
But he said, I've just been talking to some of our MA folks today.
And he said, you know, your opponents, they're just flabbergasted about what happened in Vietnam, and now they're moving to the domestic front.
And he said, we must not fight him on that battlefield.
Or at least if we fight him, we've got to be on the offensive.
He agreed with that.
So we'd be on the offensive.
But the point is, should we play that game by moving the subject totally away?
In other words, when the president moves to the subject, that's the issue.
And you move away from the other one.
You see the point?
Okay.
You've already discussed it with them, I guess, and they've all... Not in that...
Clearly in that context, no.
And I think it's worth, you know, reopening on that basis.
Now, with that, I'd like, in this instance, so you get a little more balanced view, have Colson there so he can present his view, you see, because he feels strongly about this.
He represents the Brennan view.
Or is it not proper to have him there?
Oh, sure.
Have him, have Schultz, and have Ehrlichman and yourself, and hack around a bit.
Yep.
That's a move.
Okay, bye.
Thank you.
← 036-108036-110 →