The Cavalier daily. :: Friday, November 1, 1968 :: University of Virginia Library

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.