Rep. Meyer, Political Pariah, Presents Conservative Vermont With Liberal Ideas for Debat

"There is a respected place in politics for the honest conservative but the languid liberal is of little use. We need progressives who will stand up and fight for a program suited to the needs of a new age. We cannot find them among these who cower before the brew beating of domestic reactionaries. The time of decision is upon us. Either we stand up together, united, or we may lose the opportunity for a political, moral, and spiritual rebirth of American democracy. If this battle is lost at home, It may be lost throughout the world. Either the people and their leaders reaffirm their faith in action or they accept... tyranny.... The choice is simple, though the consequences are profound. I have made my choice and I believe the people are making theirs."--William H. Meyer, May, 1960.

William H. Meyor is a political anomaly. An articulate progressive in an often unintelligibly conservative state, he has managed to make his advanced ideas part of Vermont's everyday political discourse. A politician whose chief desire is to see the world attain peace with freedom, Meyer has expressed ideas that have been represented as ones which could lead to war. A man whose honesty no one questions, he has frequently been termed selfish.

Meyer's straightforward approach to politics has confused Republican Party workers, voters, and even members of his own Democratic Party. In all parts of the state, the major campaign issues are ones that Meyer has raised. Many Republicans who violently oppose him, agree that he often makes good sense; some Democratic who strongly favor him question many of his ideas.

Because of Meyer, the Vermont political campaign has displayed clearly the line between political conformity and political foresight. The Republicans are faced with issues which neither they nor the voters of the state had confronted before Meyer's surprising election in 1958; their only choice has been to appeal to the voter's fears. Their candidate, Governor Robert Stafford, has alternately been forced to sing a paean to American military strength and to label Meyer "dangerously naive."

The Democrats have attempted to disseminate Meyer's ideas as widely as possible. Somewhat hampered by lack of funds, they have mailed complete outlines of Meyer's record and opinions to every voter in the state. Meyer himself has tried to talk at length with as many voters as possible.

The difference between the two parties' approach to politics, and the contrast in the attitudes of party workers, becomes apparent inside the Republican and Democratic headquarters. Republican headquarters in Rutland is a long, rectangular store-front. Although there is ample room for about 15 workers, it is rare that more than five are present. On the door hangs a sign, prominently displayed, reading "Pat for First Lady." Inside, workers who discuss the campaign seem constantly on the defensive. No one has much to say about Gov. Stafford's foreign policies--in fact, one lady admitted that "his discussion of Communist China appeals only to the emotionally committed and the intellectually uninformed"--but Republican workers are quite willing to discuss the opponent's personality.

"I sat with Meyer for two hours the other night," said one lady, "and tried to be objective--I know I'm blased. But he didn't crack a smile, not one smile. I can't vote for a man who's that serious." Another lady, the former head of Rutland's League of Women Voters, chimed in: "He's a complainer and a pouter. What's more, he doesn't represent Vermont's attitude when he votes in the House. He sticks to his own idealistic position, saying exactly what that position forces him to believe. I think he has a selfish attitude."

Meyer's campaign has forced these Republican workers to formulate new arguments, although their logic is often questionable.

For example, the woman who criticized Stafford's policy on Communist China (no admittance to the U.N. until the Chinese display their love of peace), later justified her political affiliation by observing that "Meyer may be a great man, but certainly he's ahead of his time. I sincerely believe that a man is chosen for his time--call it mystical if you will--and therefore I believe that Stafford should and will win." She turned to a discussion of the "emotionally committed and intellectually uninformed": "I would hate to see a country run only by college graduates; think of what would happen. There is some sort of magic about our system of government which always allows the people to vote for the right man."

Meyer's headquarters in Rutland is about half the size of Stafford's, and nearly five times as crowded. Local candidates, city officials, party workers, college students--all sit around and talk for a few hours. When discussion isn't strictly political--"who will win this city?" "Get a group of workers to Addison County,"--it generally focuses on Meyer's political ideas. No one totally agrees with all of the Congressman's policies, but most people working at Rutland headquarters have attempted to think out their own views; and all agree that Meyer makes a good deal of sense. No one has much to say about Stafford; they have seen his type in almost every state and national election.

Governor Stafford's own campaign tactics show very clearly the extent to which Meyer's views have changed the Vermont political climate. If it weren't for the Congressman, such issues as recognition of Communist China, abolition of the draft, and nuclear test ban would never find their way to the small towns and farms of Vermont. The Republicans are acutely aware that they have no positive programs on national affairs; they pitch their campaign to the uninformed audience, hoping to exploit the desire for an unbeatable military force and for a quick relaxation of national and international tension.

Last Saturday, the Governor campaigned in several upstate Vermont towns. One of his stops was in Wolcot, a dilapidated village of several hundred residents. Many of the houses there are run-down, either from want of money or attention; the general store is musty and disheveled; the town hall doubles as a gymnasium for the high school basketball team.

A small cluster of elderly people were impatiently was for him to arrive. No one seemed particularly concerned what Stafford would say; traditional Republicans. He had decided how to vote long before this election, International affairs barely interested them. The issue was study Congressman Meyer was a radical fool, Governor Staff out safe, "Besides," said one, "the Government is run by define agencies. Congressman have no right to examine their posses, " Meyer, they felt, was altogether too concerned of the government's business.

Driving his own car, Stafford arrived about an hour. He is a thin, tall, dignified looking man in his mid-forties of brown hair curls in ridges, his profile is semi-circular squalling nose is most prominent. Slightly disturbing in watery gray eyes, which have trouble, fixing on anyone opposes him.

Before entering the town hall, where he was to spend Stafford walked over to a receiving line of school kids. He one received a single pump from the Governor's hand a smile, and a piece of campaign literature. Inside the about 30 people were lounging on benches which surrounding the basketball court. After he had finished shaking asked their hands, the Governor walked toward the middle of court and began to speak.

"I am for national sovereignty," he said, "and national security." Like Vice-President Nixon, he soon got down "the basic, essential principles." "We want disarrangement not without foolproof inspection systems. Until we arrange these, we must keep our military forces strong."

This was his positive program; the rest of the speech of devoted to attacking a strawman, which he called, Meyer record in Congress. For instance, criticizing Meyer's attitude toward the draft--he wants it abolished--Stafford quoted to Congressman's phrase "cancerous militarism." "This disgusts me," he said, "disgusts all Vermont's who fought in World War II. It is against the interests of thousands of Vermatan and millions of Americans."

The bare proposal and the evocative phrase were all ford discussed, but in fact Meyer's thinking goes far dispatch Abolition of the draft, he had suggested, would, in the long run strengthen both the army and the nation. Some people had noted, simply aren't able to fight.

He also pointed out that too much money is spent tradition man who quickly forgets what they learn and, in case of will probably have to utilize different skills. Finally, he had observed, "The way to peace can't be found if we in all our youth too much military thinking. And I say that not in disrespect to our officers and to the men of our service I respect them most highly. I say this as a citizen interested in the future welfare of the country."

The Governor criticized more than Meyer's attitude on the draft; he went on to condemn what he called "Meyer's rote to abolish the Defense Department," and his votes against the Mutual Security Program which, he emphasized, "gives us to impoverished places." Here, gain Stafford misrepresents Meyer's record.

Instead of "voting against the Defense Department," the Congressman in 1959 voted against what he considered a wasteful Defense Appropriations Bill; in 1960 he voted for the waste contenting himself with the chance to work for a better program in 1961. Instead of voting to cut down aid to "the poverished places," as Stafford charged, Meyer opposed the Mutual Security Program simply because it contained money to implement a policy of sharing nuclear weapons with other countries. He voted, however, for all amendments strengthening economic development programs and promoting International cooperation for progress and defense.

The essential difference between the two men is indicating by their conceptions of the way a legislator should representatives his constituency. Stafford seems to feel that no matter how badly informed the people of Vermont are, their representatives should reflect every aspect of the majority opinion Meyer seems to believe that no group of people can be well-informed as its representatives, and that the people don't always know what their best interests are. He votes as he thinks best, not necessarily as the people might think best and through newsletters from Washington, through Carefully clear speeches, he informs the people of the logic behind him position.

Meyer has effectively changed the texture of Vermont political discussion; he has provided a friction point that the people can use to construct their own opinions. Because no one political attitude has proved infallible, he told a group of voters last weekend, "The important thing is not to be right, but to consider each course of action. Too often Americans see one side of a complex problem. We should try to present them with the other. And I happen to think that history will show that my attitude was the correct one."

This approach draws severe criticism not only from Republican politicians but also from private citizens and the press. An editorial in the Burlington Sunday News indicates the attitude of most reactionary Vermonters:

"We believe that when patriotic Democrats stop and think of Congressman Meyer's record In Washington, they cannot but repudiate him.

"Meyer wants to stop nuclear testing. The only possible way we can keep ahead of the Russians is to CONTINUE nuclear testing.

"Touch Meyer anywhere and you find him voting in a way that must give constant comfort to our enemies, the Russia's Communists.

"If Meyer was the Congressman from some slum area is some great city, his attitude might be more understandable. But Meyer not only comes from a state which produced Ethan Allen, but from that part of the state that Ethan Allen is often traveled in the days of the American Revolution...

Meyer's staunchest opponents, however, have to double about his honesty; the doubt in the minds of Vermont voter stems from the conflicting images of a sincere dissenter and of dangerous radical. The two strains are present even in the comments of Stafford's campaign manger, Earie Bishop, a veteran who has served two terms in the service, and is now a member of the National Guard and wears his uniform when he spends Sundays at home. "Meyer is dangerously naive," Bishop observed, "but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity--and certainly he makes sense in what he says."

Vermont voters are torn in two directions; those who favor Meyer are as confused as those who oppose him. "I'm all for Bill Meyer," said one man at the Rutland Eiks Club Saturday night. "He says what he believes, and that's more than you can say for Bob Stafford." A little later, though, when his friends were discussing the issues of the campaign, the same man observed that "I wouldn't recognize Red China in the U.N. In fact, I'd drop a bomb on them right now. America has to become an imperialistic country--has to kill some people--if she's going to keep freedom in the world."

Another Vermonter, one who opposes Meyer, believes that "leaders of the world have never realized that cooperation is a better method than competition." When it was pointed out to him that this was precisely Meyer's attitude he replied, "I know, but in today's world you have to vote for the man who will do the most expedient thing."

Talking to voters, one frequently finds that they are afraid of war, that they think American policy is confused, that they think Meyer is sincere and may even have the right idea; but that they won't vote for him. "He's too talky," said one elderly lady. "Every time I open the paper he has something to say, and always about different problems." "I've lived through two wars," said another, "and I pray every night that we won't have a third. I think we're wrong about this Cuba business, and we're making too many bombs." Why won't she vote for Meyer? "I don't know, I just disagree with him."

One also finds that acute attitudes derived from daily life rarely affect Vermont voters' political preferences. One young married lady, for example, launched into a passionate condemnation of the people she had seen who went to Europe and felt that they were superior to Europeans. "We have no right to do that," she said, "it's as though I insulted my neighbor because her garden is different than mine." But believing this vehemently, she couldn't accept the fact that Meyer feels exactly the same way. She, too, was voting for Stafford.

The confusion that most voters feel about Meyer's honesty versus his radical attitude, about the necessity of progressivism versus desirability of retaining the status que, is reflected in the Democratic Party organization even more than in the Republican. Several leading Democrats have their doubts about Meyer (although there is a hard core of Meyer workers, like those who work through the Rut land headquarters, who are with him all the way.

"If the state organization had kept working since 1958," said one Meyer supporter, "we would have swamped the Republicans. But they got scared of Bill Meyer, and there was no unity. Now the election's going to be close; I have no doubt that we're going to win, but it's going to be close."

Some Democrats are afraid of Meyer because of their own political interests. If he wins this election, they seem to feel, their place in the party will be shaky; the traditional party machinery will break down. If the voters re-elect Meyer, the party will probably nominate more Democrats with progressive beliefs, leaving little room for the old-line moderates.

Other Democrats are afraid of Meyer's ideas and find them difficult to defend. One factory owner from Bennington, important figure in the State, was certain that Meyer should have tempered his arguments to appeal to different voter groups. "Whenever I start talking about Bill Meyer," he observed, "I get into fights, sometimes even first fights. I wish he'd made more of an effort to get the veteran's vote--Armistice Day is too late--by toning down his ideas on the draft and on war."

Meyer has heard these comments on his policy time after time in the last few years, an outsider feels; he is reiterated his ideas again and again and now has little to discuss with new party workers except the prospects the election itself. The opportunity conversing with Vermont voters have not been sufficiently exposed to ideas seems far more attractive to than the necessity of talking with professional Vermont politicians. In the outsider feels that Meyer's unfortunate compromises have not on principles but rather on his chance of associates.

Will Meyer be re-elected? In 1951 won on a fluke, running against a whom even Republican Party regular call "an idiot." In 1960, the campaign much together; Stafford is a slick, read candidate whose words may what the people of Vermont want hear. To win the state, Meyer the Democrats must attract at least per cent of the Republican vote, before counting on most of the Democratic Independents. His chances are less and even.

Should he win, though, Vermont's will have a substantial influence in the House of Representatives. The Grossman who have been again to vote with him--fearing the next may find his victory symbol. And observers of the political act those who doubt that a man of judge can find a place in elective politician could learn a new, reassuring learn from William Meyer's career

He also pointed out that too much money is spent tradition man who quickly forgets what they learn and, in case of will probably have to utilize different skills. Finally, he had observed, "The way to peace can't be found if we in all our youth too much military thinking. And I say that not in disrespect to our officers and to the men of our service I respect them most highly. I say this as a citizen interested in the future welfare of the country."

The Governor criticized more than Meyer's attitude on the draft; he went on to condemn what he called "Meyer's rote to abolish the Defense Department," and his votes against the Mutual Security Program which, he emphasized, "gives us to impoverished places." Here, gain Stafford misrepresents Meyer's record.

Instead of "voting against the Defense Department," the Congressman in 1959 voted against what he considered a wasteful Defense Appropriations Bill; in 1960 he voted for the waste contenting himself with the chance to work for a better program in 1961. Instead of voting to cut down aid to "the poverished places," as Stafford charged, Meyer opposed the Mutual Security Program simply because it contained money to implement a policy of sharing nuclear weapons with other countries. He voted, however, for all amendments strengthening economic development programs and promoting International cooperation for progress and defense.

The essential difference between the two men is indicating by their conceptions of the way a legislator should representatives his constituency. Stafford seems to feel that no matter how badly informed the people of Vermont are, their representatives should reflect every aspect of the majority opinion Meyer seems to believe that no group of people can be well-informed as its representatives, and that the people don't always know what their best interests are. He votes as he thinks best, not necessarily as the people might think best and through newsletters from Washington, through Carefully clear speeches, he informs the people of the logic behind him position.

Meyer has effectively changed the texture of Vermont political discussion; he has provided a friction point that the people can use to construct their own opinions. Because no one political attitude has proved infallible, he told a group of voters last weekend, "The important thing is not to be right, but to consider each course of action. Too often Americans see one side of a complex problem. We should try to present them with the other. And I happen to think that history will show that my attitude was the correct one."

This approach draws severe criticism not only from Republican politicians but also from private citizens and the press. An editorial in the Burlington Sunday News indicates the attitude of most reactionary Vermonters:

"We believe that when patriotic Democrats stop and think of Congressman Meyer's record In Washington, they cannot but repudiate him.

"Meyer wants to stop nuclear testing. The only possible way we can keep ahead of the Russians is to CONTINUE nuclear testing.

"Touch Meyer anywhere and you find him voting in a way that must give constant comfort to our enemies, the Russia's Communists.

"If Meyer was the Congressman from some slum area is some great city, his attitude might be more understandable. But Meyer not only comes from a state which produced Ethan Allen, but from that part of the state that Ethan Allen is often traveled in the days of the American Revolution...

Meyer's staunchest opponents, however, have to double about his honesty; the doubt in the minds of Vermont voter stems from the conflicting images of a sincere dissenter and of dangerous radical. The two strains are present even in the comments of Stafford's campaign manger, Earie Bishop, a veteran who has served two terms in the service, and is now a member of the National Guard and wears his uniform when he spends Sundays at home. "Meyer is dangerously naive," Bishop observed, "but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity--and certainly he makes sense in what he says."

Vermont voters are torn in two directions; those who favor Meyer are as confused as those who oppose him. "I'm all for Bill Meyer," said one man at the Rutland Eiks Club Saturday night. "He says what he believes, and that's more than you can say for Bob Stafford." A little later, though, when his friends were discussing the issues of the campaign, the same man observed that "I wouldn't recognize Red China in the U.N. In fact, I'd drop a bomb on them right now. America has to become an imperialistic country--has to kill some people--if she's going to keep freedom in the world."

Another Vermonter, one who opposes Meyer, believes that "leaders of the world have never realized that cooperation is a better method than competition." When it was pointed out to him that this was precisely Meyer's attitude he replied, "I know, but in today's world you have to vote for the man who will do the most expedient thing."

Talking to voters, one frequently finds that they are afraid of war, that they think American policy is confused, that they think Meyer is sincere and may even have the right idea; but that they won't vote for him. "He's too talky," said one elderly lady. "Every time I open the paper he has something to say, and always about different problems." "I've lived through two wars," said another, "and I pray every night that we won't have a third. I think we're wrong about this Cuba business, and we're making too many bombs." Why won't she vote for Meyer? "I don't know, I just disagree with him."

One also finds that acute attitudes derived from daily life rarely affect Vermont voters' political preferences. One young married lady, for example, launched into a passionate condemnation of the people she had seen who went to Europe and felt that they were superior to Europeans. "We have no right to do that," she said, "it's as though I insulted my neighbor because her garden is different than mine." But believing this vehemently, she couldn't accept the fact that Meyer feels exactly the same way. She, too, was voting for Stafford.

The confusion that most voters feel about Meyer's honesty versus his radical attitude, about the necessity of progressivism versus desirability of retaining the status que, is reflected in the Democratic Party organization even more than in the Republican. Several leading Democrats have their doubts about Meyer (although there is a hard core of Meyer workers, like those who work through the Rut land headquarters, who are with him all the way.

"If the state organization had kept working since 1958," said one Meyer supporter, "we would have swamped the Republicans. But they got scared of Bill Meyer, and there was no unity. Now the election's going to be close; I have no doubt that we're going to win, but it's going to be close."

Some Democrats are afraid of Meyer because of their own political interests. If he wins this election, they seem to feel, their place in the party will be shaky; the traditional party machinery will break down. If the voters re-elect Meyer, the party will probably nominate more Democrats with progressive beliefs, leaving little room for the old-line moderates.

Other Democrats are afraid of Meyer's ideas and find them difficult to defend. One factory owner from Bennington, important figure in the State, was certain that Meyer should have tempered his arguments to appeal to different voter groups. "Whenever I start talking about Bill Meyer," he observed, "I get into fights, sometimes even first fights. I wish he'd made more of an effort to get the veteran's vote--Armistice Day is too late--by toning down his ideas on the draft and on war."

Meyer has heard these comments on his policy time after time in the last few years, an outsider feels; he is reiterated his ideas again and again and now has little to discuss with new party workers except the prospects the election itself. The opportunity conversing with Vermont voters have not been sufficiently exposed to ideas seems far more attractive to than the necessity of talking with professional Vermont politicians. In the outsider feels that Meyer's unfortunate compromises have not on principles but rather on his chance of associates.

Will Meyer be re-elected? In 1951 won on a fluke, running against a whom even Republican Party regular call "an idiot." In 1960, the campaign much together; Stafford is a slick, read candidate whose words may what the people of Vermont want hear. To win the state, Meyer the Democrats must attract at least per cent of the Republican vote, before counting on most of the Democratic Independents. His chances are less and even.

Should he win, though, Vermont's will have a substantial influence in the House of Representatives. The Grossman who have been again to vote with him--fearing the next may find his victory symbol. And observers of the political act those who doubt that a man of judge can find a place in elective politician could learn a new, reassuring learn from William Meyer's career

The Governor criticized more than Meyer's attitude on the draft; he went on to condemn what he called "Meyer's rote to abolish the Defense Department," and his votes against the Mutual Security Program which, he emphasized, "gives us to impoverished places." Here, gain Stafford misrepresents Meyer's record.

Instead of "voting against the Defense Department," the Congressman in 1959 voted against what he considered a wasteful Defense Appropriations Bill; in 1960 he voted for the waste contenting himself with the chance to work for a better program in 1961. Instead of voting to cut down aid to "the poverished places," as Stafford charged, Meyer opposed the Mutual Security Program simply because it contained money to implement a policy of sharing nuclear weapons with other countries. He voted, however, for all amendments strengthening economic development programs and promoting International cooperation for progress and defense.

The essential difference between the two men is indicating by their conceptions of the way a legislator should representatives his constituency. Stafford seems to feel that no matter how badly informed the people of Vermont are, their representatives should reflect every aspect of the majority opinion Meyer seems to believe that no group of people can be well-informed as its representatives, and that the people don't always know what their best interests are. He votes as he thinks best, not necessarily as the people might think best and through newsletters from Washington, through Carefully clear speeches, he informs the people of the logic behind him position.

Meyer has effectively changed the texture of Vermont political discussion; he has provided a friction point that the people can use to construct their own opinions. Because no one political attitude has proved infallible, he told a group of voters last weekend, "The important thing is not to be right, but to consider each course of action. Too often Americans see one side of a complex problem. We should try to present them with the other. And I happen to think that history will show that my attitude was the correct one."

This approach draws severe criticism not only from Republican politicians but also from private citizens and the press. An editorial in the Burlington Sunday News indicates the attitude of most reactionary Vermonters:

"We believe that when patriotic Democrats stop and think of Congressman Meyer's record In Washington, they cannot but repudiate him.

"Meyer wants to stop nuclear testing. The only possible way we can keep ahead of the Russians is to CONTINUE nuclear testing.

"Touch Meyer anywhere and you find him voting in a way that must give constant comfort to our enemies, the Russia's Communists.

"If Meyer was the Congressman from some slum area is some great city, his attitude might be more understandable. But Meyer not only comes from a state which produced Ethan Allen, but from that part of the state that Ethan Allen is often traveled in the days of the American Revolution...

Meyer's staunchest opponents, however, have to double about his honesty; the doubt in the minds of Vermont voter stems from the conflicting images of a sincere dissenter and of dangerous radical. The two strains are present even in the comments of Stafford's campaign manger, Earie Bishop, a veteran who has served two terms in the service, and is now a member of the National Guard and wears his uniform when he spends Sundays at home. "Meyer is dangerously naive," Bishop observed, "but I have no reason to doubt his sincerity--and certainly he makes sense in what he says."

Vermont voters are torn in two directions; those who favor Meyer are as confused as those who oppose him. "I'm all for Bill Meyer," said one man at the Rutland Eiks Club Saturday night. "He says what he believes, and that's more than you can say for Bob Stafford." A little later, though, when his friends were discussing the issues of the campaign, the same man observed that "I wouldn't recognize Red China in the U.N. In fact, I'd drop a bomb on them right now. America has to become an imperialistic country--has to kill some people--if she's going to keep freedom in the world."

Another Vermonter, one who opposes Meyer, believes that "leaders of the world have never realized that cooperation is a better method than competition." When it was pointed out to him that this was precisely Meyer's attitude he replied, "I know, but in today's world you have to vote for the man who will do the most expedient thing."

Talking to voters, one frequently finds that they are afraid of war, that they think American policy is confused, that they think Meyer is sincere and may even have the right idea; but that they won't vote for him. "He's too talky," said one elderly lady. "Every time I open the paper he has something to say, and always about different problems." "I've lived through two wars," said another, "and I pray every night that we won't have a third. I think we're wrong about this Cuba business, and we're making too many bombs." Why won't she vote for Meyer? "I don't know, I just disagree with him."

One also finds that acute attitudes derived from daily life rarely affect Vermont voters' political preferences. One young married lady, for example, launched into a passionate condemnation of the people she had seen who went to Europe and felt that they were superior to Europeans. "We have no right to do that," she said, "it's as though I insulted my neighbor because her garden is different than mine." But believing this vehemently, she couldn't accept the fact that Meyer feels exactly the same way. She, too, was voting for Stafford.

The confusion that most voters feel about Meyer's honesty versus his radical attitude, about the necessity of progressivism versus desirability of retaining the status que, is reflected in the Democratic Party organization even more than in the Republican. Several leading Democrats have their doubts about Meyer (although there is a hard core of Meyer workers, like those who work through the Rut land headquarters, who are with him all the way.

"If the state organization had kept working since 1958," said one Meyer supporter, "we would have swamped the Republicans. But they got scared of Bill Meyer, and there was no unity. Now the election's going to be close; I have no doubt that we're going to win, but it's going to be close."

Some Democrats are afraid of Meyer because of their own political interests. If he wins this election, they seem to feel, their place in the party will be shaky; the traditional party machinery will break down. If the voters re-elect Meyer, the party will probably nominate more Democrats with progressive beliefs, leaving little room for the old-line moderates.

Other Democrats are afraid of Meyer's ideas and find them difficult to defend. One factory owner from Bennington, important figure in the State, was certain that Meyer should have tempered his arguments to appeal to different voter groups. "Whenever I start talking about Bill Meyer," he observed, "I get into fights, sometimes even first fights. I wish he'd made more of an effort to get the veteran's vote--Armistice Day is too late--by toning down his ideas on the draft and on war."

Meyer has heard these comments on his policy time after time in the last few years, an outsider feels; he is reiterated his ideas again and again and now has little to discuss with new party workers except the prospects the election itself. The opportunity conversing with Vermont voters have not been sufficiently exposed to ideas seems far more attractive to than the necessity of talking with professional Vermont politicians. In the outsider feels that Meyer's unfortunate compromises have not on principles but rather on his chance of associates.

Will Meyer be re-elected? In 1951 won on a fluke, running against a whom even Republican Party regular call "an idiot." In 1960, the campaign much together; Stafford is a slick, read candidate whose words may what the people of Vermont want hear. To win the state, Meyer the Democrats must attract at least per cent of the Republican vote, before counting on most of the Democratic Independents. His chances are less and even.

Should he win, though, Vermont's will have a substantial influence in the House of Representatives. The Grossman who have been again to vote with him--fearing the next may find his victory symbol. And observers of the political act those who doubt that a man of judge can find a place in elective politician could learn a new, reassuring learn from William Meyer's career

Will Meyer be re-elected? In 1951 won on a fluke, running against a whom even Republican Party regular call "an idiot." In 1960, the campaign much together; Stafford is a slick, read candidate whose words may what the people of Vermont want hear. To win the state, Meyer the Democrats must attract at least per cent of the Republican vote, before counting on most of the Democratic Independents. His chances are less and even.

Should he win, though, Vermont's will have a substantial influence in the House of Representatives. The Grossman who have been again to vote with him--fearing the next may find his victory symbol. And observers of the political act those who doubt that a man of judge can find a place in elective politician could learn a new, reassuring learn from William Meyer's career

Should he win, though, Vermont's will have a substantial influence in the House of Representatives. The Grossman who have been again to vote with him--fearing the next may find his victory symbol. And observers of the political act those who doubt that a man of judge can find a place in elective politician could learn a new, reassuring learn from William Meyer's career