Talk:Murray Chotiner

message: Chotiner, in the photo, looks strangely like Nixon. He has the famous Nixon ski jump nose. —Mattisse (Talk) 03:25, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What is funny is that one of Chotiner's ex-wives commented on how much Chotiner and Nixon looked alike, and said when Mitchell joined the Nixon cabinet, she called it the "jowl Administration".  Too funny.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:32, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chotiner photo 

message: I think the lead needs work. It is too obscure for a general reader. There is the assumption that the reader knows about Nixon's history of campaigns and his controversial presidency  and nuances of American politics of the middle of the last century, the significance of a "pink sheet" etc.  Also, there is nothing in the lead to interest the reader about Chotiner. It sounds like he held several dull political jobs. Your infer that he was involved in designing Nixon's controversial campaigns tarring his opponents as Communists. But you cannot expect the general reader to understand the significance of this, in a world where the most famous "Communist" is Fidel Castro.  "Political operative"  is rather technical for the general reader.  This is my opinion, of course, and I could be wrong.  —Mattisse (Talk) 00:25, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I will play with it.  But I think that any reader of an article on Chotiner will have some nodding acquaintance with Nixon's history.  But yes, I will explain that "red baiting" brought political success in the 1940s.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: So you are not thinking of it as an FA, but just an article for those immersed in Nixon? —Mattisse (Talk) 00:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

text: No, I am thinking of it as an FA.  I've made a few changes.  The thing is, Chotiner himself called him "colorless", and he was a behind the scenes guy.  He shines by Nixon's light.  Nixon kinda makes or breaks this article.  There's also other points of interest, the Checkers speech, the unlikely connection with Heinlein.  I think he will be interesting enough to be a FA.  But you are right, the lede is supposed to kinda sell the article.  I'll gradually make changes in it.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:42, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the thing to do is keep pushing the Chotiner as Nixon's friend angle.  After all, we all know that Nixon didn't have friends.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was he Nixon's "friend"? I think you have to get way more basic. California in the 1940s and 1950s. Think of it, way before to Goverator (or whatever he is called). California was just starting. It was the "Golden State", where you could run around in the winter with your bathing suit on. The huge migration. Barry Goldwater had a strong  influence. HUAAC - where was Chotiner then? Ronald Reagan, Pat Brown, Jerry Brown, all became governor when Nixon could not. Nixon and Reagan, the only presidents from California. If Chotiner died in 1974, then he died just as things were getting interesting, before Nixon rounded out his more complex image which was to come later. Nixon was merely disparaged, humiliated in 1874. If Chotiner was a "hatchet man" (it would be great to learn how he engineered some great hatchet jobs} "but often said that he had done nothing in politics that he was not proud of"? What sort of man is that? You said he had a moral compass. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He did.  He considered it OK to slant, but not to lie.  See the 1955 quote I've put in there.  I have four or five references that call him Nixon's friend, in addition to Nixon's statement after Chotiner died.  It makes you wonder, what if Chotiner hadn't died?  Could Nixon have pulled it out with his counsel?  Survived, however badly wounded?  Or engineered a better comeback after leaving office (though he did quite well as it stands)  As for the hatchet jobs, what he will eternally be cited for are Nixon's "victims", Voorhis and Douglas, and that is sufficiently covered, I think.  Chotiner had no role in HUAC, he wasn't a Washington guy then, exclusively California.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Hitler probably didn't think he "lied" either. To believe that any "tactics" are OK—how does a politician manage that and never "lie", at the very least by distortion and omission? What is the secret reason you feel sympathy for this man? And how can you say, definitively, that Nixon considered him a friend? You have already said that Nixon had no friends. And there is nothing in the article that shows that Nixon was closer to him than to others. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:32, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

text: I suspect that the reason Chotiner apparently had his hands clean in Watergate is that Nixon thought so well of him.  Friend or admirer.  Chotiner left so little of himself, it is hard to know.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Nixon thought there was any problem with Watergate until things started to wrong. He didn't analyze events that way.  That transcript you sent me a link to shows he did not think in moral terms. The way he tried to calculate how far Dean would go, in such a concrete way, with no sense he was  evaluating character or moral fiber.  And something struck me in that transcript that has struck me before, that is, while Nixon talked things over in blunt terms with those around him, he also gave weight to and  considered their opinions. Although he was president, it reads like a conversation among equals. —Mattisse (Talk) 01:01, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Nixon will be a controversial figure forever, I suspect, and one intensely studied, and Chotiner is part of that story.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead 

message: Nixon may have "decisively" squelched rumors of "a private fund to pay Nixon's political expenses", but that is not what the speech is now in the collective memory. In the end, Nixon was ridiculed for his maudlin presentation. Today I don't think that speech is admired. Rather, it is considered another example of the worst side of  feel-sorry-for-me Nixon. I was under the impression that it was a misstep. The "Republican cloth coat" became a joke.   —Mattisse (Talk) 23:08, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but in 1952 it was a wild success, and helped sweep the Republicans to victory.  There was a fund, Nixon's point is that the fund was not improper because it went strictly for political expenses.  It wasn't unusual then, Stevenson had one, but today it would break tax and election law six ways from Sunday.  Nixon was actually pissed off later that the speech became known for the dog.  It's actually pretty good, it is on YouTube, I watched it recently in prep for this article. Actually, Chotiner was one only about six people who got to watch it in person.  Just him, another Nixon adviser, Pat Nixon, and the cameramen and director--Wehwalt (talk) 00:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Checkers speech 

message: You wikilink Democrat in the lede, but you never mention that Chotiner or Nixon are Republicans and don't wikilink to Republican when you do refer to it later in the article body. For non Americans, this article will be difficult.  —Mattisse (Talk) 20:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Chotiner pretty much a Republican, or was he just a Republican when it came to Nixon? There is not much discussion of his principles/views.  —Mattisse (Talk) 02:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: He was pretty much a Republican.  I have found nothing that said he ever worked for a Democrat.  I could certainly troll the LA Times archives for his positions in the race againt Bell, but I don't think that would mean anything.  Political posturing from the master, after all.  I see you have cleaned up your concern in the first note you posted.  I could move the Republican to the first sentence but I think it is fine as it is.  And I disagree, foreigner should be fine.  Everyone knows who Nixon was, and I was careful to state the outcome of Nixon's races, so the reader who is vague on the details can follow the story.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not that clear what the difference between Republican and Democrat has been throughout history. Why isn't Chotiner's political philosophy discussed or even mentioned? The article  seems to assume every reader knows the lay of the land. I don't. In reading the article, I have to look stuff up to understand what the article is saying. In the lede, "After Nixon was inaugurated in 1969, Chotiner was appointed to a government position ..." - why the passive voice that is so disliked by FAC? Did Nixon appoint him or what? What did Chotiner do to alienate Earl Warren (who is generally considered a fair-minded man and not easily alienated)? Why did Chotiner consider he "made" Earl Warren?  (I don't think of Earl Warren has having been "made" by anyone.)    —Mattisse (Talk) 22:52, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't like the passive voice either, but there it is necessary.  Chotiner was appointed by acting Trade Rep Gates, but Gates' replacement was announced almost simultaneously, obviously so if Chotiner's appointment proved controversial, the Nixon appointee for Trade Rep wouldn't take the heat.  And of course, there is no doubt this was all set up by the White House, with the counsel position becoming a Schedule C appointment and getting a bump in salary (to what was not huge even by 1969 standards).  So I can't say "Nixon appointed Chotiner" because that is not true.  "Nixon had Chotiner appointed" is passive as well, and it is not verifiable.  What I have put is simplest and requires the least explanation.  As for the Warren questions, the sources (which are about Nixon) don't go into detail.  Warren was a very different creature as a politician then as a justice.  He held a lot of grudges, and vice versa.  Nixon hated his guts for issuing praise of Voorhis in 1946 (though not supporting him) and refusing to issue a statement supporting Nixon's candidacy, and the story of Warren's hardball tactics at the 1952 convention is a story in itself.  I'll see if I can find out more about what happened with Chotiner.  It is probably that he didn't like Chotiner's techniques.  Chotiner felt he made him because he got him elected Governor, which he stayed until he got the Chief Justiceship.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Found this.  Don't want to use it though, because Chotiner was not Warren's campaign manager.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I found a bio of Warren that says that Chotiner asked Warren, as a favor, not to approve the extradition of one of his clients.  I can see that would really, really piss off Warren.  It is in the article.  I wish there was more written on the relationship between Warren and Chotiner, that must have been a doozy, finishing with Warren forced to preside over the inauguration of Chotiner's protoge.  I do have a ref that says that Warren did not attend Chotiner's funeral, but as he claimed ill health and didn't live long himself after that, it doesn't seem worth including.  The two men clearly hated each other with a vengence though.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Republican and Democrat 

message: I don't see any way of phrasing the lede mention of Chotiner's 1969 appointment to the government position in the active voice.  He was not technically a Presidential appointment, according to the NY Times, he was appointed by Acting Trade Representative Gates, whose permanent replacement was announced the same day.  I have expanded the language in the lede to make it clear it was a political appointment.  I think that is about the best we can do.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:21, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chotiner's appointment 

message: I just wanted to let you know that I gave you the benefit of the doubt in promoting this nomination, since there was a slight disagreement between our image reviewers on whether their issue was actionable under WIAFA.  Auburnpilot's big search also played a role in that, as did the pledge to continue looking at offline sources for a free image.  I hope that you will continue that search and find a replacement image soon. The article was overall well-done; I enjoyed reading it. Karanacs (talk) 16:23, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you.  I'll leave a note on your talk page referring you here, but I spent an hour and a half at the National Archives this afternoon.  They don't have a free use photo of Chotiner (the ataffer said he enjoyed this article, too!).  I went through folders of staff photos just to be sure.  If anyone needs photos of Charles Colson or Rose Mary Woods, you know where to go!  He did suggest I call Yorba Linda just to be sure, I will do so.  I did come away with a copy of the contact sheet of photos of Nixon at Chotiner's funeral.  Basically, the idea is that Chotiner was, despite his friendship with Nixon, too far down the heirarchy.  I will update when I have more.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for doing that! I think the major point was that significant effort must have been undertaken to find a replacement image, and in my (non-image-expert) opinion you've definitely done that. Karanacs (talk) 20:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks.  I'm going to put Jerry Voorhis, slated as my next nomination, on hold because I need to do the same for him.  While the Archives didn't have any photos of him, House of Representatives is a possibility there.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Having exhausted Washington's resources, I'm going to try California this summer.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: Is anybody else having problems reading the dashes in the headings, e.g. "Rise of Richard Nixon (1946–1952)"  Maybe it's just my browser, settings.  Smallbones (talk) 22:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see anything wrong, I use Firefox btw.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dash it all 

message: This article talks very little about others involved in the Nixon-for-Senate campaign including Bernard Brennan working with Chotiner in SoCal, and the team of John Dinkelspiel and Harvey Hancock in NorCal. There was a guy covering Central California out of Fresno, too—his name is on the bottom of the pink sheet but I can't read it, nor can I judge how important his contribution was. All the sources I have seen divide the campaign in two, with Hancock and Dinkelspiel getting some direction from Chotiner but acting independently, especially in terms of the pink sheet. The NorCal guys looked at Nixon's voting record as compared to Marcantonio's and Gahagan's and found it nearly identical, so they thought the pink sheet an indefensibly weak attack, and kept it out of their jurisdiction. Binksternet (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true.  My sources say a few sheets were distrubuted in NoCal, but the bulk was in the South.  Chotiner was certainly in overall charge, but as a SoCal guy himself, he knew enough to let the NoCal guys operate their own way.  However, Chotiner travelled with the candidate and had Nixon's ear in a way that the other guys did not.  Hancock was the pro in NoCal, I looked him up in my references after the DYK on him.  The CenCal chair was B.M. Hoblick of Fresno, I haven't tried to find out much about him.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to add about them.  I can certainly say that Dinkelspiel and Hancock declined to allow the Pink Sheet in NoCal.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be enough to let the reader know the limitations of Chotiner's reach. Binksternet (talk) 22:28, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It's in there.  No wonder the Northerners lost all five counties that Nixon lost.  Or it may have been the limits of Nixon's reach ...--Wehwalt (talk) 22:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  1950 campaign people 

message: From reading the lead, I gathered that Chotiner was significant because he was a brilliant campaign strategist.  Yet I skimmed the article, and found no mention of any of his brilliant strategies or what him so successful.  I think this article should have a goal in mind in highlighting his significance and emphasizing his accomplishments.  Include stories and examples of his brilliant strategies. Mac520 (talk) 06:27, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We do mention the campaign strategies he notably used in the Knowland and Nixon campaigns.--Wehwalt (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Significance 

message: I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Wehwalt for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 08:11, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia 

message: The source for the statement that "Chotiner's Law has held true in every presidential election since his death" is a NYT article from 1992. Several elections have taken place since its publication and I remember that Barack Obama won in 2008 despite having been seriously challenged in the Democratic primary election by Hillary Clinton. The words "every election" should at least be replaced by the word "most elections". --Edelseider (talk) 19:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: As Chotiner put it, it only applies to a second term. Carter was damaged by Kennedy, Bush by Buchanan. There has been no serious primary challenge to a sitting president since.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:05, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right. I misunderstood the word "incumbent". The author of the article in The American Thinker apparently did as well. But he's an American, so that's worse! --Edelseider (talk) 12:37, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Consider also what Reagan did to Ford in 1976. We will see what happens in 2020. Bob305 (talk) 17:02, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:   "Chotiner's Law" still holding true today?