Page 3


as he does on the sophisticated sidewalks of Palm Beach; versus Burns, who has literally triggered some of the recent race riots in Jacksonville by his attitude. That’s why High probably won’t win. He’s too good for the state, as the state now is. The first day of the run-off campaign, Burns declared $16,000 in contributi6ns. High declared $330. His is no groundswell. Big money does not love a man any more in Florida than it does in Texas when he says, for example, that the state should buy its insurance on a bid basis rather than on a buddy basis. In the last few days, however, it seems the people of Florida have done some soul searching, and that old-fashioned phrase actually applies. The odds for High have not much improved, but now and then you actually hear old-line north Floridians \(we’re only twenty miles from the Georgia soon have an honest liberal as” \(you quite a concession. High has even got the support -Of one minor North Florida politician who ran for governor once and carried six counties on a strict segregationist ticket, but who now says, “I’m tired of voting against men just because they’re nigger lovers.” When the choice is a sharp one, when the difference between two candidates is such that the voter’s conscience is actually brought into play, the state has been benefited even if the best man loses. The High and Burns offset is doing for Florida what the Yarborough and Shivers confrontation once did for Texas. The Negroes of North Florida get the credit. Neither the NAACP nor CORE nor any other organization had much to do with it. They were almost leaderless. They simply followed their conscience, and by doing so created a situation in which Florida politics has once again become a debate of the conscience, for the white man too. The Texas Republicans’. Senate Runoff Austin The talk and speeches will have less to do with who wins the Republican runoff for the U.S. Senate nomination than work will. Women on telephones calling the Republicans who voted Republican May 2 are the heart of both George Bush’s and Jack Cox’s campaigns now. Conservatives who voted Democratic May 2 cannot switch over and vote Republican June 6 without risking a fine of $100 to $500. Nevertheless, the two runoff candidates continue to try to make points in words. Both are Goldwater Republicans, so neither can make any hay there, one way or another. Cox took a deep plunge in a statement May 13. “Reports filed by my opponent with the Secretary of State,” he said, “show that he spent a whopping $176,274.00 in the first primary. This spending spree secured 60,000 votes for him. Simple arithmetic sets the price at about $3.00 per vote. A projection of this figure to the estimated million or more votes it will take to beat Ralph Yarborough in the general election totals a staggering $3,000,000.00 or morean amount unheard of in Texas politics. . . . There have been previous attempts to buy office in Texas, though none nearly so brazen, and they have failed as his attempt will fail. Just as surely as Rockefeller’s millions can’t buy presidential nomination, George Bush with his millions can’t buy a Senate seat.” With this theme Cox risked providing Sen. Yarborough with fodder for his campaign against Bush, if Bush is nominated. Reporters figured out that actually, Bush spent closer to $2.60 a vote, while Cox spent $1.20.. Yet Cox felt he had to run against Eastern money. In Corpus Christi he said he didn’t know if there’s a Republican establishment, but he hadn’t had any help from the East, he knew that much. Cox’S second major theme is that Bush can’t win. He says that Gordon McLendon proved that a bright new face with lots of money is not enough to beat Yarborough. Again Cox picked up a Yarborough theme: that McLendon’s vote, plus the total vote cast for all four GOP candidates for the Senate, did not reach Yarborough’s total. Obviously, Cox said, there are fewer Republicans in Texan than Republicans had hoped, and even though “We know that ours is the only party for those who love Freedom,” still, “We must supplement our Republican vote with a massive number of other conservatives in November. I know where to find these people because I have been there before.” Cox has asserted that Bush is not “an unquestioned conservative” and claimed support from backers of Robert Morris and Milton Davis. On issues, Cox has emphasized his support of Goldwater, calls the war on poverty “solid socialism right down to the core,” says U.S. membership in the U.N. “is not serving the interests of the United States,” and upholds the “constitutional right to bear arms.” Bush has warmed his campaign on the Billie Sol Estes issue. Bush first turned this subject against Cox April 13 when he publicly noted that Cox received a $325 contribution and the loan of an airplane and pilot from Estes in 1960, when Cox was running for governor against Price Daniel. “This will nullify this issue as far as Cox is concerned,” Bush said “then. Cox, who is now providing Sen. Yarborough with quotations on the big spending issue, was outraged that Bush would turn on him in this way back in April. Bush knew all about that when he was Cox’s campaign finance chairman in Houston in 1962, Cox said; and there was no irregularity in accepting the contribution before Estes was in trouble. Besides, Cox said, the Pecos Enterprise, which broke the Estes scandal, endorsed Cox and said, of Cox having been helped by Estes beforehand, “None but the most devious demagogue would attempt to attach any political significance to that situation.” “I am not casting any aspersions on Cox’s character,” Bush rejoined to criticism from Morris. “The issue here is that simply due to his unfortunate linking with Estes, Cox will be unable to bring Yarborough to task.” This point had lingering force, as attested to when Cox recently said he will bring up the Estes matter against Yarborough, depending on the FBI report on the Estes-Dallas News charge. Bush rubbed his hands together briskly as McLendon more and more openly used the News story quoting Estes on the $50,000 tale. April 22 Bush said, “The scandals of the summer of 1964 are going to make the Truman scandals pale by comparison.” . April 27, after McLendon’s ll-out broad-, cast on the $50,000 matter, Bush told a breakfast group in El Paso, “McLendon is doing a wonderful lot of research for Republicans.” April 29 Bush said, “There is no question about Yarborough’s involvement with Estes. It is a matter of record. He denies that he got the $50,000 but there are plenty of other connections, with Estes that he cannot deny.” Faced with the FBI’s statement on one of McLendon’s witnesses’ repudiation of his own story, Bush’s tone changed some. “It doesn’t matter how much money, if any, that he got,” he said after the primary. “I think the nation is tried of Billie Sol Estes and especially of having a U.S. senator involved with him.” May 12, Bush announced he had called on the Justice Dept. to report on the $50,000 matter and inquired what had happened to Ernest Keeton. “Is he missing in action? Or have his civil rights been violated?” Sam Kinch quoted Bush in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. When Yarborough voted with Senate Democrats against extending the Baker investigation, Bush hopped him, saying, as he had said before, “I think the people of Texas and America are fed up with Billie Sol Estes and the Bobby Bakers.” Bush’s campaign has made the most of this subject. Nevertheless, he has carried on a theme of his basic hostility to Yarborough’s policies. Before the primary he called for a whopping majority for Goldwater. He calls Yarborough “this left-wing senator.” He wants , “a* no-nonsense firm foreign policy” and U.S. military support for a Cuban government in exile. To “eliminate poverty” he proposes such a foreign policy, unfettered free enterprise, and “a return to morality in government.” He May 29, 1964 . 9