Page 7


r. .4.1400,” ,..164.4voorgoomom I Dialogue What Hope for Preston Smith? I liked the Observer’s sock-it-to-em endorsement of Paul Eggers and the twoparty system, as much as I deplored Dugger’s muddleheaded meanderings in the Nov. 15 issue. Dugger completely lost me in his statement that he holds Eggers “dominantly responsible for the emptiness and sloganeering conservatism of all the statewide Republican campaigns.” Blaming Eggers for what Bush, Tower et al were saying makes about as much sense as blaming Hubert Humphrey for what John Dowdy and 0. C. Fisher were saying. And where’s Dugger’s “certain hope” about Preston Smith? Smith “humanely concerned about these times”? It has not showed up during his 18 years in public office. Those who think that there is some painless and riskless way to destroy the one-party system and replace it with a two-party system, and those who want to reap all the benefits of a straight ticket voting under the one-party system and hope that we can achieve the benefits of the two-party system should join the Harper Valley PTA. How could Dugger vote for Smith after the Lubbock Lugwrench accused Don Yarborough of a desire to appoint “weirdos” to office, whose conservatism is topped only by that of A. Shivers, and whose entire campaign was funded by the despicable Austin lobby and Dallas and Houston big rich. Come on, Dugger, get with us when we need you. Archer Fullingim, Kountze News, Kountze, Tex. Mr. Fullingim, the editor of the Kountze News, was a leader of the Rebuilding Com mitt e e in 1966 and 1968.Ed. Editorial Integrity Since beginning a subscription with The Texas Observer nearly three months ago I have, almost without exception, been pleased with its reporting of statewide 16 The Texas Observer and national political news. Its coverage of the recent elections was of a high calibre. There were instances in which I found myself in disagreement with the editorial opinions. But this should be expected, particularly when independent reflection is rendered upon controversial political campaigns. I am, consequently, deeply dismayed by the actions of those who have cancelled their subscriptions as a direct result of a disapproval of editorial opinion in the Observer. Editorial policy should remain a matter of individual expression, free from consideration of what is essentially a form of economic reprisal. Those who have succumbed to their emotions in this fashion have now very likely denied themselves access to political news not easily available, and are probably less informed citizens. I trust the Observer will maintain its editorial integrity, and I look forward to future challenges by the convictions expressed therein. Steward Edward Sutin, 2303 Barton Village Circle, Austin, Tex. 78704. Completed Confusion Asking for the defeat of Hubert Humphrey \(Obs., fusion. Cancel my subscription. D. A. Davis, 2910,29th St., Port Arthur, Tex. 77640. Why So Late? First of all, could you tell me why the Nov. 1, 1968, issue of the Observer arrived only yesterday, Nov. 8, 1968? And this issue especially should not have been late as far as I am concerned. I use the Observer for guidance during election time. Perhaps the next issue will arrive closer to the publication date? I certainly hope so. Please try to get the Observer to me on time in the future. Secondly, I must disagree with your editorial in the Nov. 1 issue concerning the defeat of Mr. Humphrey. No, I am not going to cancel my subscription since the Observer is still the best source of liberal Texas politics available and I find that I use some of the material in teaching my classes in government at South Texas College here in Houston. Granted that the Democratic party needs some saving but the election of Nixon is not the way to accomplish this. . . . David Robinson, 7923 Barberton, Houston, Tex. 77036. Cancellation Some years ago, labor unions were asked to support the Texas Observer by buying subscriptions. At that time my local union subscribed to the paper due to the fact that it was a paper that was fair to organized labor and needed subscriptions to keep it going. Due to your political philosophy expressed in the Nov. 1 issue, I am requesting that you cancel our subscription and refund any unused portion that we may have. P. W. Baham, secretary-treasurer, Local 4-228, Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, P.O. Box 548, Port Neches, Tex. 77651. New Subscriber I have been reading the Observer fairly regularly for more than a year. I want to subscribe to it now primarily because of your Nov. 1 editorial urging the defeat of Hubert Humphrey. Carolyn Cates, 1511-B Palma Plaza, Austin, Tex. 78703. A Renewal Congratulations on your front page editorial refusing to back either Humphrey or Nixon. Enclosed is a check to renew my lapsed subscription. Chandler Davidson, 1512 Rosenberg St., Galveston, Tex. 77550. Liberalism Discredited Your editorial of November 1, urging the defeat of Hubert Humphrey, was a fairly accurate assessment of the Democratic party. It was an illustration that the discredited state of the Democratic party is so great as to be capable of expression in liberal rhetoric, from a liberal point of view, out of a liberal attitude, and for the purpose of enhancing liberalism. As the Democratic party has continued to have the support of liberals in Texas, the editorial correctly observed the nature of Texas liberalism. That there is a liberal editor in the state astute and honest enough to make such observations is encouraging. That you could suggest as an alternative only a wasted vote \(i.e., vote for one of the other two candidates, write someone in state of electoral politics in America. Undoubtedly, you will be subject to economic harrassment, in the form of cancelled subscriptions, from liberals angry at your lack of myopia regarding the future of Texas liberalism within the state Democratic party. \(“We must keep the Democratic party in power because someday WE may control the machintwo-year subscription to the Observer will help to offset those unfortunate losses. Doran Williams, Box 7274, UT Station, Austin; Tex. 78712.