University of Virginia Library

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.