Letter from Washington

Washingtonians are watching the Gallup Poll with a fascination usually reserved for election years. They are watching for “two numbers in the thirties.” Between the last and the last-but-one poll the percentage of the American people in favor of compelling Mr. Nixon to leave office rose from 18 to 24. If the next poll (which will reflect public reaction to John Ehrlichman’s testimony, and to Mr. Nixon’s refusal to release the tapes) reveals another six-point increase, the percentage favoring removal will be thirty. If the next poll shows an increase of the same proportion reflected in the last one, the figure will be 32 per cent. In the last poll only 40 per cent approved Mr. Nixon’s performance in office. Any dip will bring the approval rating into the thirties. It is impossible to gauge the impact of a poll showing the figures for those approving Mr. Nixon, and those who want him to resign, that close together.

John Ehrlichman’s testimony before the Watergate Committee clashed at some point with most other testimony thus far heard. If he told no lies, then he established that the Committee has heard a flood of perjury from earlier witnesses. In fact, his story conflicts with stories told by 18 other persons— including Mr. Nixon. Ehrlichman says he was so busy with campaign issues that the only political activity he had time for was to insist that the Committee To Re-elect the President get to the bottom of the Watergate scandal. But that is not how Clark MacGregor, former Chairman of the Committee, remembers it: “I don’t remember that Ehrlichman was a champion of disclosure during this particular period.” The heart of Ehrlichman’s testimony was that John Dean had done most of the wicked things on his own hook. Senators will weigh that; they will weigh all the particular conflicts between Ehrlichman’s testimony and other testimony, against this statement by Jack Caulfield (who passed an offer of executive clemency from Dean to James McCord): “Since I had worked extensively for Mr. Dean and Mr. Ehrlichman and had formed an impression that Mr. Dean rarely made decisions on matters of consequence without speaking to Mr. Ehrlichman, my guess was that when Mr. Dean referred to ‘high White House officials’ he at least meant Mr. Ehrlichman.”

Washingtonians are watching the Gallup Poll with a fascination usually reserved for election years. They are watching for “two numbers in the thirties.” Between the last and the last-but-one poll the percentage of the American people in favor of compelling Mr. Nixon to leave office rose from 18 to 24. If the next poll (which will reflect public reaction to John Ehrlichman’s testimony, and to Mr. Nixon’s refusal to release the tapes) reveals another six-point increase, the percentage favoring removal will be thirty. If the next poll shows an increase of the same proportion reflected in the last one, the figure will be 32 per cent. In the last poll only 40 per cent approved Mr. Nixon’s performance in office. Any dip will bring the approval rating into the thirties. It is impossible to gauge the impact of a poll showing the figures for those approving Mr. Nixon, and those who want him to resign, that close together.

John Ehrlichman’s testimony before the Watergate Committee clashed at some point with most other testimony thus far heard. If he told no lies, then he established that the Committee has heard a flood of perjury from earlier witnesses. In fact, his story conflicts with stories told by 18 other persons— including Mr. Nixon. Ehrlichman says he was so busy with campaign issues that the only political activity he had time for was to insist that the Committee To Re-elect the President get to the bottom of the Watergate scandal. But that is not how Clark MacGregor, former Chairman of the Committee, remembers it: “I don’t remember that Ehrlichman was a champion of disclosure during this particular period.” The heart of Ehrlichman’s testimony was that John Dean had done most of the wicked things on his own hook. Senators will weigh that; they will weigh all the particular conflicts between Ehrlichman’s testimony and other testimony, against this statement by Jack Caulfield (who passed an offer of executive clemency from Dean to James McCord): “Since I had worked extensively for Mr. Dean and Mr. Ehrlichman and had formed an impression that Mr. Dean rarely made decisions on matters of consequence without speaking to Mr. Ehrlichman, my guess was that when Mr. Dean referred to ‘high White House officials’ he at least meant Mr. Ehrlichman.”