University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor:

Nixon-Humphrey Debate Continues

Ex-Vice President Richard M.
Nixon, in his assault last Thursday
on Vice President Humphrey, may
have raised more questions about
our defense policy than he
answered. Like his own 1960 rival,
he said there is a "gravely serious
security gap."

He also said that the Eisenhower
administration's display of strength
explains why it did not have the
war in Vietnam, the Bay of Pigs,
the Cuban missile crisis and the
Berlin Wall. But neither the facts
nor his own earlier statements
appear to support his main points.

The record partially supports
him in the matter of the Berlin
Wall, but only insofar as the actual
laying of the bricks is concerned.
The Wall, built in August of 1961,
is merely the tragic symbol of a
crisis which had grown steadily over
the years and culminated in the
Eisenhower-Nixon year of 1960
when Russia abrogated the
four-power treaty for occupation
rights in Berlin and transferred to
East Germany control of all
movement between East and West
Berlin.

The genesis of the Bay of Pigs
fiasco can be laid at Mr. Nixon's
own door. He first proposed such a
venture in the Spring of 1959. It
was not until the election of 1960
that President Kennedy learned of
what he had been bequeathed by
Mr. Eisenhower and Mr. Nixon - a
force of Cuban exiles under
American training in Guatemala, a
committee of Cuban politicians
under American control in Florida,
a ready-to-go plan for both the
invasion itself and the installation
of a provisional government.

The Cuban missile crisis, of
course, was a direct outgrowth of
the Bay of Pigs, and the way it was
handled, far from being shameful, is
one of Washington's brightest
chapters. Moscow had to remove
the long-range missiles.

On the Vietnam war, Mr. Nixon
has moved slowly from his early
1968 campaign position that he had
worked out a solution which he
would not disclose until (and if) he
was elected President. His running
mate, Spiro T. Agnew, thereafter
stated there wasn't any such plan,
and Mr. Nixon, refusing to discuss
the subject further, would only say
that "the efforts that were made
were right, in my view."

The facts are that Mr. Nixon
himself was one of the first to
suggest that it might be necessary to send American ground troops
into Vietnam. He did this in a
speech to newspaper editors in
Washington on April 16, 1954 after
(1) then Secretary of State John
Foster Dulles, who said President
Eisenhower wanted it, had asked
and been refused a joint
congressional resolution permitting
the use of American air and naval
power, and (2) Mr. Dulles had
flabbergasted the French Foreign
Minister by inquiring as to whether
American might help matters by
dropping "two atomic bombs to
save Dien Bien Phu:"

Mr. Nixon should have been
asked to address himself to these
matters on Sunday night when, still
refusing to debate Mr. Humphrey,
he appeared for the first time in
two years in a nationally televised
news conference.

He might also be asked about a
seeming contradiction between
statements in his 1968 acceptance
speech where he pledged "an end to
the era of confrontation," and his
Thursday night speech. In the latter
he raised the specter of an alleged
"security gap" verging on a
"survival gap" and pledged that if
elected, he would institute what
can only result in a stepped-up
nuclear arms race with Russia -
even though both nations already
have sufficient nuclear power to
write finis to the human race.

Rocky Support

In today's Cavalier Daily (Oct.
23), a writer, Rick Pearson, states
that he feels "sorry for the
Republican followers of Gov.
Rockerfeller (sic!)," because the
Nixon-Agnew ticket was nominated
despite the efforts of Nelson
Rockefeller's supporters. I would
like to state that I, as an erstwhile
Rockefeller supporter, desire
neither Mr. Pearson's sympathy nor
his condolences, and the many
people who felt that Nelson
Rockefeller would have been
preferable to Richard Nixon will
still be better served by the latter
than by the No. 2 man of the
incumbent administration. Perhaps
Mr. Pearson thinks that, because he
supported a "Vietnam dove" and
the Rockefeller supporters included
such "doves" as John Lindsay and
Jacob K. Javits, that all of
Rockefeller's supporters are
likewise "doves;" let me first note
that before the Miami. Beach
convention, John V. Lindsay, while
declaring his support of Gov.
Rockefeller, admitted that the
latter's views on the war were "not
much different from Mr. Nixon's"
on a nationally broadcast and
televised interview program.
Rockefeller's supporters felt that
10 years of governing a state the
size of New York, and governing it
well, establishing many new and
progressive programs, qualified
him eminently for the presidency;
but the choice is now between two
men with rather similar
backgrounds. Both Nixon and
Humphrey have been
Representatives, Senators, and Vice
Presidents; Humphrey has, it is
true, been a Mayor of a major city,
but this was many years ago, before
most of today's urban problems
developed their urgency.
Humphrey's Vice-Presidency,
however, was under the president
who developed the greatest
credibility gap in history, the man
who, while trying to achieve the
broad consensus for which he was
often criticized, managed to
alienate so many normal supporters
that he felt it necessary to put up
his Vice-President rather than seek
re-election: Lyndon B. Johnson. A
man who serves an apprenticeship
in such an administration cannot
help being tarred with the brush of
all the faults of that administration,
particularly since until he was
nominated he had never expressed
the slightest doubt that
administration was doing what was
right. Richard Nixon has no such
liability; his Presidential
apprenticeship was in the
administration of a man who was
sometimes criticized for lack of the
radical action his critics favored,
but who never achieved the
notoriety of even half an LBJ.
Dwight Eisenhower achieved
instead the consensus that LBJ only
talked about. Richard Nixon may
not be able to do as much as
Eisenhower did because he does not
have the war-hero status of his
former superior, but he can be
trusted more than LBJ's deputy can
hope to be.

Much has been made of
Humphrey's civil rights record; but
what has he actually done? His
walkout in 1948 only affected a
Democratic convention and
actually did not lead to any
legislation. The first two civil rights
acts since Reconstruction were
passed in 1954 and 1957, during
the Eisenhower-Nixon
Administration; it might be noted
that the Republican members of
Congress supported the latter by a
10-1 margin in the House and
unanimously in the Senate. Of the
various principals in this election,
the one who has done the most for
civil rights is the one who few have
cared to label a civil-rights
advocate: Spiro T. Agnew! He was
county executive of Baltimore
County and pushed through the
first public-accommodation law
south of the Mason-Dixon line; he
was the first governor of Maryland
to come out openly for open
housing, and got his legislature to
pass that law. Let's all get our facts
straight before criticizing
candidates for office.

Editorial Tactics

Your editorial tactics of the last
few days are, in my opinion, quite
unbecoming for a University
newspaper.

You certainly have the right to
endorse a Ticket for the elections.
But it is in poor taste to use and
abuse your control of the editorials
in order to offer a barrage of
gratuitous and uncalled-for political
announcements day after day.

In your article The Only Choice
you stated "We had originally
intended to endorse the Republican
Ticket. We are now convinced,
however, that the Republican
Ticket is nearly as unacceptable as
the American party ticket, and so
the Democratic ticket is all that's
left." Now, that's quite a change of
mind, isn't it? The Cavalier readers
will either have to judge your
contention that you "Originally
intended to endorse the Republican
Ticket" as insincere, or conclude
that your mind jumps around like a
grasshopper.

On the same editorial you show
your very own brand of liberalism
and intellectual generosity: "We do
not see how any thinking person
could support a ticket as obscure
and ambiguous as this year's
Republican ticket." Mr. Editor:
you might need a prescription of
common sense and a review of
recent history to be able to see how
most thinking persons will, indeed,
support the Republican Ticket.

You dedicate another full
editorial to castigate Mr. Nixon on
account of a T.V. commercial
against Mr. Humphrey. You don't
give a thought to the possibility
that the advertisement could have
been published without Mr. Nixon's
knowledge of its contents. But,
why should you think of this
possibility? It would deny you
another opportunity to blast Nixon
once more. I certainly do not
condone that type of
advertisement. You conveniently
fail to mention the type of junk the
Democrats are throwing at Mr.
Agnew. Do you dislike Agnew
because he successfully ran on, and
implemented Open Housing in
Maryland? Do you hate him
because he is firm against riots and
looting? Or is it rather because of
his name and humble background?

And on the issue of
advertisements, your hero "Lefty"
Hubert is one of the greatest
"Spitballers" of all times. Did you
ever see the "Atomic bomb" or the
"Bad guy tearing the Social
Security card" commercials against
Goldwater in 1964? Didn't you
listen to that flamboyant orator,
"triple H," telling the American
people how Goldwater would
escalate the war, but the
Democratic Administration
(Hubert's) would bring it to an
end?

There is no need to go on. You
are the same writer or writers who,
just a few days ago, found a
marvelous deed the Rapier account
of a theft, perpetrated with the aid
of a pay-off to a dishonest athlete
down of the border. If you glorify
stealing and cheating (even as a
joke) I am glad you are not
endorsing Richard M. Nixon for
President of the United States.

Pedro P. Bermudez
Jr. Instructor,
Romance Languages

Just as a newspaper editor
assumes full responsibility for every
word in his paper, regardless of who
writes it, a candidate must assume
responsibility for every action done
in his name as a part of his
campaign, regardless of whether or
not he is aware of it.

"On the issue of
advertisements," neither the
"atomic bomb" or the "bad guy"
commercial, regardless of how low
it was, depicted anyone laughing at
hardship. The "Laughing
Humphrey" ad, unique among the
myriad of examples of mudslinging
on all sides, attempted to pass off
on the public, as another man's
attitudes, attitudes which were
foreign to him.

The Cavalier Daily took no
stand on the Rapier affair. We
merely reported it as we received it.
Reporting stealing or cheating does
not "glorify" it anymore than
reporting that a particular speaker
will address a particular club
glorifies the speaker. -ed.