ustxtxb_obs_1961_03_18_50_00010-00000_000.pdf

More Reader Response on Senate Campaign Endorsement Upheld Sirs: Like many loyal liberal Texas Democrats who have now become used to supporting Henry B. Gonzalez, it seemed only natural to support him i this Senate race without seriously considering the other candidates. The first occurrence that caused any real debate in my mind came when the Observer endorsed Maury Maverick for the office. On Saturday both Gonzalez and Maverick spoke and to make sure that I had been reasonably justified in the change, I went to hear them. Senator Gonzalez was to speak at 3. He was delayed In coming, so one of his supporters got up, to give the audience a little background information. Gonzalez was still not there when another man arrived who added more to the background material. Finally, an hour after the scheduled meeting was to have begun, the Senator did arrive. He walked in the room and began talking about the campaignthe places he had been, the kind of communications he had used, and the general lack of funds. He continued, without notes, making references to the other candidates which the audience could easily identify; he said one opponent said he supported John Kennedy’s program but anybody, Sen. Gonzalez said,’ could be a rubber stamp, it took a real man to decide for himself what he supported. Senator Gonzalez did not mention what, if any, of the President’s program he would back if elected or any other plans he had as a U.S. Senator. He also discussed experiences he had had while holding offices in’ San An tonio and that he was presently an elected state senator from there. A little before 5, he told us he regretted having to leave but that he had to catch an airplane and, after answering one question, was on his way. That evening Mr. Maverick was to speak to a similar group of college students. When I arrived he was already there going over his lecture material. The meeting began promptly at 7 p.m. and after the proper introductions, Mr. Maverick began. He told us that he had been a college teacher and a state representative, that W. Prescott Webb, J. Frank Dobie, Mrs. Frankie Randolph endorsed him, as had the AFL-CIO, and that he was a liberal even in Dallas County. He was in agreement with Kennedy’s five-point program and intended to continue support of his administration, although not blindly. He discussed in detail the five-point program. He spoke of his concern over America’s leadership in the world and the effectiveness he foresaw for the Peace Corps in eradicating our worst enemy, not Castro but the conditions that cause a Castro. At 7:30 he concluded and asked for questions. The audience was prepared. Through the answers he gave to the students’ questions, Mr. Maverick clearly defined his position on everything from Algerian independen^e to federal aid to education. At 8 the meeting ended. The audience rose to its feet clapping in appreciation of a man who had something to say. I understood the Observer’s endorsement, and I add mine. Ann McGuffin, 630 Hillcrest, Denton. Where He Stands Sirs: I am convinced that Maverick is the best liberal in the Senate race, and I offer a few comparisons in support. Maverick has unequivocally announced his support of Kennedy’s major legislative program: $1.25 minimum wage, aid to depressed areas, medical aid to the aged through social security, federal aid to education, and increased unemployment compensation. I heard Gonzalez speak last March 18. Although he roundly criticized a candidate “who blindly endorsed a $1.25 minimum wage,” he named no amount he was for. The San Antonio Express said this of his ideas on the minimum wage: “Sounds remarkably like Republican Goldwater on the conservative Arizona senator’s views on minimum wage.” As to medical aid to the aged, he again criticized Kennedy’s program, saying that social security would not cover enough people. This line , of argument is exactly the same as the one used by Nixon in the last campaign. It completely overlooks that these other people not under social security have already been provided for by the Kerr-Mills bill passed last session. Gonzalez spoke for over an hour and failed to endorse one single solitary Kennedy proposal. True, Gonzalez opposed the segregation bills, but for that matter so did the seven conservative legislators from Bexar County. It was Maury Maverick Jr., however, who during the blackest days of McCarthyism had the courage to stand up and be counted against the McCarthy bills, a stand taken by only three others out of 150. Texas needs a man with this kind of courage in the U.S. Senate. Texas needs an avowed and acknowledged suppdrter of Kennedy’s basic program. Texas needs a man who is willing to let the people know where he stands. In THE TEXAS OBSERVER Page 10 March 25, 1961 short, Texas needs a Maverick in the Senate. Andrew Schouvaloff, 403 E. 17th St., Austin. Overriding Issue Sirs: My check is enclosed for a year’s subscription and for single copies of your February 11 and February 18 issues containing the report of the interview with John Tower and the column “Tower’s Chances”. I have been reading secondhand copies of your paper for about a year but I am no longer satisfied to be a week or two late reading your stand on current events, especially when at long last you voice an opinion with which I wholeheartedly agreewith one modification. Mr. Morris concluded his column: “This writer would like nothing better than to see against some staunch maverick liberaland get roundlytrounced.” I would modify only the last phrase to read “and win overwhelmingly.” I will not peruse this further because as you point out in the first paragraph of the same sustained discussion of specifics would end only in total exasperation and anger.” While I am reluctant to part with my five bucks in support of a left-wing enterprise \(which I assume will be subsidized, then government owned at the earliest money’s worth in thought provoking opinions and unbiased reporting from the liberal point of view. Let there be no doubt. The overriding issue now as throughout history is freedom of the individual vs: state oppression and I am firmly enrolled on the side of the individual. I submit that it is the conservative who is progresSive by promoting individual freedom with a minimum of government control and it is the liberal who is regressive by unavoidably \(if control and, therefore, loss of freedom of the individual, while trying to help the individual he is destroying. But I promised not to pursue . . . “total exasperation.” Please enroll me as a subscriber to the Observer. Tom Coffing, 210 21st Avenue North, Texas City. From the Belfry Sirs: I resent Dr. Carter’s implication that the ivory tower liberals are backing Maverick. I regard myself among the highest in the clouds of the ivory tower liberals, and I am certainly not backing a man who I regard to be basically ignorant of the issues. My vote will go to Henry B. Most of my belfry companions will do the same. Robert N. Frampton, Chairman C.O.S.T., 100 East 15th St., Austin. Othello and Desdemona Sirs: Wayne Chastain’s talented comparison of Prince Hamlet and Maury Maverick was a literary gemthe kind that appears more frequently in the Observer than in most other papers. In its backhanded slap at Maury it supported Henry. If Maury is a Hamlet \(and ary validity we may compare Henry to Othello the Moor. The Desdemona in this comparison would have to be the liberal cause, to which supposedly, Othello is married. Iago would have to be “discrimination in reverse”, for that seems to be the evil tearing at the vitals of the man who until this election has been my champion for each of the elective positions he sought. Will You Help Us To .. . ROPE SOMEBODY IN On April 15 Dear Reader: On April 15 you will receive two copies of the Observer through the regular mails. In an effort to double our circulation overnight, and hence place our newspaper on a paying basis, we are asking you to use your extra copy of the April 15 Observer to find us one additional subscriber. Do you know some friend, relative, or associate who would care to subscribe, someone in your precinct, union local, or bridge club? You have three weeks to think of ONE person who might subscribe to our paper. We ask your help and co-operation. What Others Say About Us: . *’An eloquent voice of the Texas eggheads.’ The Reporter *’Has played .a leading role in exposing Texas insurance scandals.’ Time *’A crusading opposition newspaper.’ Look *’The Carolina Israelite, the Petal Paper, the Texas Observer . . . The only Southern weeklies which exercise national influence.’ Sen. Paul Douglas in New Republic *’A bright, militantly crusading Texas weekly.’ The Progressive *’Reports regularly on political shenanigans which are seldom mentioned in the metropolitan press.’ Harper’s If You Don’t Want To Wait, Fill In This Subscription and we’ll get next week’s copy off to YOUR new subscriber .. . Name Address City State . . . . ……. Send $5 to The Texas Observer, 504 W. 24, Austin, Texas