Nixon, Haldeman & Ziegler on Campaign Strategy and Tax Policy

Transcript (AI-generated)

This transcript was generated automatically by AI (WhisperX) and has not been reviewed for accuracy. Names and numbers are often wrong; speakers are not identified. Do not cite it as authoritative — verify against the audio and the finding aid.

Download transcript (.txt) ·JSON data · Click a timestamp to play from that point; the page address then links to that moment (e.g. #t=125).

and it's very important to remember these.

First thing, we should use actions.

They really should.

See?

Names.

Just got to keep a side.

But, like, when we've got guys in our order,

Not only in Belgium, but all over the world.

Yeah.

Big deal.

Yep.

President's son.

Right.

It is.

It's sort of the American loyalty.

Look at each other.

Look at each other

He said, he and John and I want to work together on this.

I wonder what we have tomorrow night.

Barton and Fred Nowick suggested they're not urging him, but just wanted to raise the point that you might want to, off the record, have Marty Stanton for a few minutes.

Just because he's getting knocked around so badly in this stuff that it isn't essential at all.

It's just something that could be done.

Well, I don't mind if he doesn't ask me to do anything for him.

He won't.

He has to ask to see that he has no vision.

They just thought it might be a nice thing for you to just... All right.

All right.

Frank, tell him you know how tough it is and all this stuff.

It is heartbreaking.

He's not the kind of guy you can deal with.

We can't take the kind of... Oh, we'll keep the straight arrow over the head.

I had a long talk with Ray about a series of speeches and people and stuff like that that doesn't make much difference.

Well, he raises a point that maybe there's something to do about it.

We talked a while back about the Legion speech, for example,

where, you know, by rewriting and restructuring it, you got it the way you wanted to do it.

And that was one way to talk about it.

Well, the point is, I need to spend time with the writers.

That's his argument.

No, I think that makes sense, but I don't...

It's not his argument.

His argument is that what hangs him up on that is the vice that they get caught in by what has to be in the speech and the 2004 letter.

And he points out that the American Legion speech, after you delivered it, was 4,500 words.

And that if they could write to 4,000 words instead of 2,000, they could write to that and still get the content the other way.

And he recognizes that may not be valid.

But he says that's at least part of the problem, is they write to the discipline of the 2,000 words, and they cut out all of the what

to them are unessential, but what to you are the key points of the speech?

Why don't we go to 3,000?

The anecdotes and stuff.

I don't know.

I think what they've got to do is tell them that they've got to write a 2,000-word speech for a 1,500-word speech.

Yeah, right.

And then they can, tell them 1,500.

Right.

And then they can have 500 to 1,000 words for doing the other.

Well, raise, raise.

Yeah.

Let's do that.

Let's see if maybe they can do that.

The thing they are not good at is trying to get anything to form.

That they cannot do.

So don't try to put in a speech form.

Write 1,500 words of substance that they need to be.

And then put in, if they want to put in 1,000 words of anecdotal material or supplemental material, fine.

It gives them a little bit different leeway.

It might work.

I don't know.

He understands the point.

He knows what you're saying.

He doesn't know exactly what to do about it.

But he does, to a degree at least, partially recognize the problem.

Did Chuck cover with you the Harris stuff on Vietnam that he's putting out on Monday?

Yeah.

Because it's really fascinating.

Oh, yes, yes.

The favorite bombing and mining.

Yeah.

That he's done.

The favorite bombing and mining by 5332.

Yeah.

74 to 11, they agree with President Nixon's contention that it's important that South Vietnam not fall under the control of the communists.

These are going to happen, 74 to 11.

Right side of the issue.

By 47 to 35, Martin, they oppose the coalition government in Saigon, even if that were the only way we could get peace in Vietnam.

In other words, the majority prefers the war to a coalition government.

And 74 to 11, against communist control.

Then he points out...

Since these results tell only half the story about the profound shift that's taken place in the past month in American public opinion on the Vietnam War.

Just much of the renewed credibility of Nixon's policies on Vietnam can be traced to the succession of statements and campaign tactics of McGovern on the issue.

Back in May, 54 to 21 agreed that McGovern deserves credit for being against the Vietnam War before other politicians.

In May, 54 to 21.

I remember that.

In September, it's now 42 to 41.

42 to 41.

So there's still one point that agrees with Kevin and Craig.

But as he says, it's a dramatic drop of 32 points in the margin paying tribute to McGovern's early stand on the law.

Contributing to this decline in confidence in McGovern and Vietnam, this 58 to 18 disagreement

with the recent statement by the South Dakota senator that, in effect, the U.S. was more brutal in its bodies than the communists when they occupied parts of South Vietnam.

Disagree, 58-18.

By 56-15, the voters knew it was wrong for the governor to predict that if he went to the White House in November, General Tu will flee South Vietnam and the coalition government of the communists will take over South Vietnam.

49-20, with plurality, simply do not give credibility to the charge by the governor's army, Sergeant Sargent, that the next administration blew a real chance to a T.O.P.

51 to 26, a majority of the vote does not agree with Senator McGovern's charge that sent Henry Kissinger's travels to Paris and Saigon are no longer a publicity stunt.

42 to 25 agree with the administration's claim that by sending Salinger to Tarleton Arcade against McGovern was harming efforts by Kissinger to negotiate a settlement.

49 to 32 do not go along with the claims of Ramsey Clark that the U.S. was engaged in immoral and human violence.

And then, the one that's, in a way, the most interesting of all, they've asked, they've always asked the question, frequently asked the question, do you intend to agree or disagree that President Nixon has not kept his pledge of 68 to end U.S. involvement in Vietnam War?

And not kept, it was 48-40 in April, it was 50-42 in July.

Now it's 44-46, pledge kept.

In other words, it's moved to where, it's a small point, but two points more.

Say you kept the pledge to hand out U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War.

When they asked which candidate you feel most agreement with in bringing home U.S. troops from Vietnam, the governor of Nixon, it's Nixon 51, the governor 33.

But it just goes to Henry, because it just was a Vietnam issue.

If you head to Rogers too, Rogers' best way to become more of a public personality is for him to lash out on Vietnam, talk to them stronger.

You know what I mean?

He has the time to always counterattack, but he's always impulsive about it, not always whining around about it.

You know, he doesn't like that.

State Department.

How do we prove that we're not bombing?

How can we do something about the dice?

We're not worried about what if we draw it out?

Initiative.

Very good.

People think we're wrong when we talk about avoiding communist takeover, but goddammit, the people in this country are

six or seven to one against your communist takeover.

Henry thinks we're wrong.

I know.

Henry always drags it out of the speeches.

I say, put in the word communist.

74 to 11, it's the next one's contention.

The court will not follow the protocol of the communists.

Bob, that's the word.

It's only basically the liberal, liberals that don't like the word communist and so forth.

That's the idea of McCarthy, etc.

That's very good.

We've got boys up there rumbling about tax increases and so forth and tax reform.

That's why the press.

And I think we can shift it to our advantage.

I just wanted to make sure that I'm heading in the right direction.

Scott, before this morning, said that you had made the point to be no tax increase, provided we had a ceiling.

Well, they said a ceiling, and if not, the Congress would have to take the responsibility and so forth.

Then they got it to the point

does this mean for the next administration, the next four years?"

I said, yes.

Now then I got up there and I said, well, now I was press secretary, you're saying, I said, when the president contemplates, does not plan, does not contemplate, contemplating any new tax increase on the next administration, next term.

And I refer back to the subject of the Congress.

I always think that's the thing that the Congress overrides.

You have to listen.

See what I mean?

Well, that's right.

I can't, the president's not going to submit tax increase budgets, that's for god damn sure.

No, that's, this is a point I'm making.

In our side, there's a commitment.

We're not going to resolve any tax issues.

That doesn't mean we don't vary in the numbers.

You know what I mean?

Yes, I did.

That's the only point.

You may change the overall number, but there's not going to be any tax increase or tax take.

That's a commitment that we made for the next four years, subject to the Congress chair.

We don't want government to get any bigger.

The point I'm making is the government should not get bigger.

You should also clear that.

Well, I was thinking I may take Erlingman out of three.

Yeah, great.

Because we've got to focus on this now.

Right.

And number one...

The trouble is, though, don't answer my questions.

Make Erlingman attack.

That's what I was doing was attacking.

The attack on Erlingman's program will require a 50% tax credit.

You can't add $100 billion to the budget without tax and services.

higher prices higher taxes did they say that yes sir okay and then they followed up with the fact is that the president is committed to the tax increase good but attack but you see the thing i'm thinking the president denies he's going to have a tax increase remember he's going to have a tax increase and we're against him that's why that's why i'd like to get early even out there this afternoon

because I think then we'll shift it back to the attack.

Right now, the story, even though that we did attack, and I attacked, is that the president says he won't have an attack increase.

Well, what I want to force up there a little more is the comparison.

Well, that was the purpose of sending the man to your town.

I told him I should have briefed him myself, I guess, but I sent him over there to Earthen's office.

No, no, they tried.

They tried.

They hit the envelope.

So, George, if you're making a problem,

Then the issue would not go.

Oh, I said that before.

I said it in some of the speeches.

No tax increase.

There would be no increase in taxes.

That's the point.

Value added.

If that would come about, then we have decided.

That doesn't equate to tax increase.

Hell no.

Tax reform may shed burdens.

I mean, tax reform to make it more equitable is one thing.

To make tax system more equitable, we may have a simplified form.

We may change this and that.

We don't rule out changes with anything.

There's going to be any taxing.

The result of the land is taxed.

Increases under the gut is the out-of-tact report.

Or is the out-of-tact report resulting in a tax increase?

Any tax report proposals, we don't rule out out-of-tact reports that we make will not result in a tax increase.

The tax fighting agreement comes from.

Good evening.

Only if they get him on the back and he requires a 50 percent increase in taxes.

I think we've got to shoot down the value added.

They keep talking about it.

One hand, I mean not one hand, Buchanan makes the point.

Any new tax is a mistake, even if it's one tax to relieve another.

The only thing the folks will see or understand or hear about

is Nixon's new practice.

We spent several weeks explaining the concept and several weeks after that explaining it.

John could do that.

We happen to be in a good place.

Why didn't you say no, we're not considering that this time?

Because we're really not.

It's been under study.

It's under study.

What he could say... We are not considering it, no.

We're not considering it.

What he could say, it's been under study, we haven't received the report yet, but... Yeah, we haven't received it.

We, frankly, we haven't seen any report that we're satisfied with.

Therefore, we're not considering it.

Based on the information we have at now, it's highly...

It's a problem.

But, there would be...

Okay.

Why didn't you shoot it down?

for four years.

Well, I'll say that.

Don't shoot it down.

Well, thank you for the news.

Quite frankly, Mr. President, you've got to say four years.

Because if you don't, then they'll go with the story.

No, we're ruling it out in consideration of our tax reform proposals.

Quite frankly, you have to be a little bit more specific.

Our tax reform proposals are not even moving back.

We have not found a formula that we think is exactly what it's going to touch on.

The President ruled out that event, and I don't

But don't you agree in response to that type of question?

Does that mean for the four years?

You've got to say yes.

Because if you don't, then they'll say, the president says he won't have it.

And times increase the first few years.

Yeah, you're right.

Because the Congress increased the budget.

That's right.

But we don't have to say that.

We don't have to say that.

He just said they haven't found any part of the president's rule.

Do you think a right will happen later?

No, no, no, no expectations.

It's a lousy political concept to have kicking around.

And McGovern's just, he's writing it.

He's using it.

And that's why I got pressure this morning.

The value added is that these plans, that's what you're considering.

Just tell him we're not going to say that we're not considering it, because we're not.

We're not going to have it now.

And I know this.

We've got him in a good psychological state now to get a good story out of this in three, because I was not paying with him until the fourth quarter.

Tell him to crack it.

He's called me on it.

I've got to go see what they have to do last night.

All right.

Now then, this Hoffman, are you aware of that?

Well, he's going to North Vietnam to try and negotiate to release him.

Oh, I'm pretty sure he does.

That's that man, Paul Gibbons.

Gibbons, right.

He can't enter, check him off.

I guess he's been floating around here for a while.

He's not turned off.

He's on his way.

But, uh...

He won't go anywhere.

You brought up the question, are we going to criticize him after criticizing Salinger and Fonda and Clark?

Yes, I would.

Well, he's not going to play their propaganda.

Well, we didn't criticize Salinger for the prisoner release or Kennedy.

We criticized Clark and we criticized Clark and Fonda.

for talking against the United States.

We criticized Salinger, very definitely, for injecting himself.

into a negotiating setting on behalf of the private citizen.

There's no negotiating taking place in Paris.

That's where it's all going to be.

It's all going to be in Paris.

And he was doing it on behalf of the opposition candidate.

He was driving himself, the private citizen.

I'm going to say that I just have a comment.

We've got to see how he conducts himself.

I'd say it depends on how he conducts himself.

That's what I'd say.

I'll tell you, I'll say it this way, just to take the other side for a moment.

If we use the law, it depends on how he conducts himself, but this is not the role for a private citizen.

That would cut through the natural instinct and the natural story that will be written, that we're not criticizing a compliment we did find in Clark and Tellinger.

I don't give a damn.

The hell with it.

I don't give a damn.

stick it up their ass.

That's fine with me.

We're not going to criticize it before he gets there.

I'm not going to comment.

We didn't comment on the others until they let out the main assholes.

I just said I don't have any comment on this.

That's an eye contact.

I'm not going to comment.

That's an eye contact.

The White House didn't criticize the others, did they?

No.

Right?

But that's not as much of an error as if I had her in front of me at the end of it.

I think we just need to get some money out of the connections, though.

And, uh, is he, well, is he going there to negotiate?

We have no information on that.

That's what we'll see.

See what I mean?

I can take right with that.

Don't, don't, don't, don't get into it now.

Yeah, I haven't even shooted down anybody.

I just want to make sure.

But we're not going to have it, so.

That's pretty sure.

Now is the time to shoot.

And letting it flow down doesn't help us.

Yeah.

That's right.

See, that's perfect.

I'm just saying, he can say it.

Recommended by a number of people.

It's for consideration.

And we have decided to, I met with Schultz this morning.

He can face it on the Schultz meeting.

That's great.

He decided, the president decided this morning that

Which is a recommendation, Secretary, that we would not have an offensive attack.

Just flat out.

Flat out.

It's not worth it.

We're not going to hit you.

Good.

So these guys, I said, well, I'm content.

I was watching my kids in there.

Because they hadn't read that $4,000 crime.

They didn't know it had to throw away some people.

But it had all been mailed to them.

Just unbelievable that they sit there and their mouths open.

They're politicians.

So we sure aren't getting across in the country, are we?

These guys don't have it.

I'll tell you the other thing, you can equate it to the press, too.

It's amazing.

The weakness of the communication structure is incredible.

Even in the press conference out here, they were asked questions based on what they had conceived in their own mind that you said at the press conference maybe five weeks ago.

Well, hell, I remember.

Why can't they?

They're the reporters.

They said, well, I recall that the President said he was going to submit a tax reform package by the election time.

I said, you don't recall that because he didn't say that.

What he said was that now is not the time.

An election year just ain't tax reform, number one.

Number two, he said he would submit it to the next Congress before the first of the year.

He didn't say before the election year.

He also said on value added that

Giving you the tax should not be in disguise for tax increase.

What we're talking about is reform and equity.

You've got all of these guys out there.

They don't want to say that.

They're pulling your leg.

I grant the point that they will do that to get us started.

I didn't know they wanted to write it the other way, but they're trying to write it the other way, so that's that.

But that's all right, you're not going to hurt it.

It's got to be categorical as hell.

Yeah, that's fine.

That's what I would work with.

I want many other things, but it hasn't worked out.

I want an argument on camera at 3 o'clock saying, no tax increase, no value added.

That's right.

We've got it.

It's appropriate.

This is what we're doing.

This is one of the clearest issues of the campaign.

The McGovern, the Bill McGovern question, after we take into consideration this New York speech, now would add $100 billion to spending, which would mean a 50% tax increase, inevitably.

No way.

President Nixon is against any tax, any increased taxes.

for the next four years.

And that covers the next four years.

We believe government's too big.

And it shouldn't get any bigger.

And I mean bigger for us.

Tax reform, to make it more equitable, that's always possible.

Value added tax.

The only thing that they may do, there's

in terms of equity.

We submitted in 69 as part of our package to the Congress a request that everybody, the rich, all pay something.

They didn't give it to us.

And Schultz recommends that that ought to be included for the election.

And this is only going to hit the assholes and 50,000 or more who are going to pay any taxes.

So you might want to .

It's a pure equity thing.

It has nothing to do with money.

It's maybe half a billion.

But the point is, we take a half a million and give it to him.

No.

Property tax reviews and all that kind of stuff.

But I haven't been able to decide on that yet.

But my point is, there's no tax increase.

I think you should get that practice card out of hand.

Then why doesn't he go back and write the changes like Tom Lee said yesterday at the same time?

Yes, we've already provided the greatest tax reduction in history.

We've taken $19.5 million.

We've taken $9 million.

We have reduced individual taxes by $19.5 billion.

We've increased corporate taxes by $4.5 billion.

And we've reduced the excise taxes that individuals pay by $3.5 billion.

We've reduced excise taxes.

And we've taken $9.5 billion of poor people off of the tax rolls completely.

$9.4 billion off the tax rolls and reduced those earning $5,000 or less by 66%.

And people earning between $5,000 and $15,000 by 15%.

Right.

And that's just...

I think they'll use it today, because we're going to .

Yeah, I will.

See, he can't be legal.

He can't be cued.

He's got to say no.

And we decided that this morning, rather than .

We're trying to work out how the apartments work.

We can't answer the question.

We're working on the apartment of the property tax.

Our goal is the reduction of the property tax.

So we've got to work on the apartment of the property tax.

But we're going to wait a week or so for this committee.

We're going to come before the election.

That will depend on the committee reports.

But we've rejected value additives.

Yes, we've added value additives.

But don't you agree we can't get into the process of answering 1F questions because there's really no security?

No.

I'm going to go into any questions.

This is our decision.

There's no need for it.

Oh, right.

Do you let me think, in retrospect, if we were correct in giving the press one party or not?

Absolutely.

Is it worthwhile?

Yes, sir.

I want to come out on that.

I mean, it seems to me that that's not the right thing to do.

It's so degrading.

And except for a half dozen, I don't mind.

I think it did a lot of good.

You know, no immediate shift in story.

Not a shift in story.

But your point is that it shows that we are not being accessible.

Well, no.

I think it goes beyond that.

It accrues to our advantage, simply from the standpoint that it shows you relaxed, confident, and in control.

And it shows it in that type of setting.

But it showed you in that setting.

That's right.

It showed you in that setting.

But still, they know your graciousness and .

It's good from that standpoint, because it's the attitude thing that doesn't shift the stories.

It doesn't make it change the impressively hard-on-tax reform out here.

But from our own personal standpoint, it's helpful.

getting the answer.

I've told these people around here to tack it.

It's not helpful because you're giving them a cocktail of an enjoyable time.

It's helpful because they see you in a relaxed setting.

So she said, don't you know that?

Sure.

I only see the staff, too.

I would do it again.

I never do that.

good at some point that was a good time to do it when you're not you're not seeking any credit it's better to have done it then than on the eve of going out and campaigning

Chris Whitehouse is a big trucker.

He is.

He is just a curve manager.

Yes, he's good.

What did I stand in on?

One hour.

He's out there.

I totally didn't want to.

Claire got the place in advance.

Because I said, I don't want to use this much money.

One hour, he had this little green that's out there.

It never raises for you.

Got a rack.

Got Lucy the hell out of the way.

You don't want all the rest.

Okay.

He hasn't changed, but how she is, any woman, any woman is just not only, you know, children.

Those crabs.

What do you think of those?

Delicious.

And the little egg rolls.

The egg rolls are just delicious.

That's right.

Boy, everything was done right.

Everything.

He worked their ass off all day.

Well, that's the other thing.

He works with those Filipino crews.

That would be the key in this house, if you could get around to it.

Just get the goddamn niggers out and get Filipinos in.

Because the Filipinos, you work them like slaves, like they used to work the blacks.

But they work.

They're dumber than the black, except for a few.

What I don't do, they're artists.

The thing is, they are.

basically to be perfectly frank yes sir he really isn't he's good he's good at desserts but he is

And there is not good.

No, but the food...

He's good on fish.

The fish course is standard.

Whoever fixes that food on a Sequoia up in Camp David, that is the best food.

That's the best food.

That's Chief Delacruz.

But not only Delacruz, Munson cooked the same thing.

They all cooked the same way.

And there's one other guy who does just as well.

One day Delacruz was off and he was just...

Bailiff.

And the dinner out at the Western White House.

St. Benedict.

That's the rest of the world.

It's delicious.

What was that?

Well, you had the hay cake.

Oh, yeah.

But that's not... You put that out there.

I think I need to serve on to do it with a great smile.

The thing is that there's something that's better presented.

Yeah.

That's right.

The things are hot.

Of course, here you have a terrible logistic problem.

This is the worst class in the world.

One thing that I want to do is, if you're old, I told Brad to do the kitchen over.

But what I think is utterly disgraceful is this goddamn kitchen, the upstairs kitchen.

I mean, that's what we go into from time to time.

We're putting a nice bar of pretty wallpaper in California.

For Christ's sakes, they ought to do the bar over again.

Of course, the thing is that

The Blacks are awfully nice, but they aren't very accommodating.

They aren't very accommodating.

Yeah, they're old shitless.

Freddie's a nice guy, and I think he's accommodating.

Who?

Freddie.

But he's not accommodating.

He doesn't wait, does he?

There are two or three others who are there, who are fairly accommodating.

But they should be there.

I'll tell you, if you could put Ron Jackson in there, they should be accommodating.

I think they worked with the White's.

Yeah, I think so.

They worked with the White's.

See, they worked with the White's into the best operations now.

Right.

Anyway, that's a good idea, Ron.

Let's get this as our story out here today.

They hit it real hard.

That was Schultz.

Knocked the damn thing out of the box.

And that's what else we're going to talk about.

Get rid of these issues from there.

Pull the value out of it.

That was the son of a bitch.

I've never talked about something else.

Pull that thorn out and see.

Because that's where I ran into a little problem.

Right.

It just makes no sense if we're not going to do it, too, right?

People aren't worried much now.

They're only worried about the fact that they're not worried.

You don't want to deal with this.

No matter how good things are, you want to keep looking.

I agree.

You should always be on the up and try to just do a little better.

Always do a little better.

But I'm almost to the point of giving up on the House of Senators.

In some way, Bob, I think it's also evolved in our institution after Edison.

I've got to say, I think, early when Sean is still inadequate in that respect.

I really do.

I mean, you talk to John about a specific thing and tell him, hit him over the head, and he gets it out.

I'm generally speaking.

It is just bellows and ishwater and incomprehensible.

Bob, some of it is.

John, he's doing well.

And he's John, personally.

He's an elaborator.

But I mean, he doesn't have a writer.

That's why he has one.

I don't know if he's got a hater.

He's just an actor.

The crew, different.

Maybe they'll use Buchanan.

Buchanan certainly goes to the show.

We've already seen Buchanan.

Buchanan's done all the attack, counterattack.

And he's, you know, the guy on that show.

So, in the lab, we were able to introduce you to the convention.

So, those certificates have gone out?

Yeah, I know.

The guys, they're going out.

The letters, the pens, the watches have gone.

Oh, I see.

To the sectors.

Certificates are on the way.

Sean's got a watch.

I just wonder why we get what I'm surprised to be thankful for.

I don't care unless someone, you know, they need us.

You know the catch was to show us again a one.

I think that would be a little

I think it slipped on one over a week somewhere along the line.

Nixon, Haldeman & Ziegler on Campaign Strategy and Tax Policy

AI Summary

Audio

Transcript (AI-generated)

NARA Description

Nixon Library Finding Aid

Also recorded on September 7, 1972

Cite this conversation