KEATING DEFENDED

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your editorial Thursday on the New York state senatorial race was disheartening for one who has looked in the past to the CRIMSON for well-reasoned statements of complex problems. Complex the Keating-Kennedy battle is, but your analysis shows a rather startling lack of comprehension of the basic issues.

In the first place, your entire editorial was slanted unmistakably toward the Democratic side. This slant has been a notable characteristic of all your coverage of the New York race thus far. If your editorial writer were forced into a corner and thumbscrews were applied, I am afraid he would have to admit that deep down in his heart he believed that any Democrat is better than any Republican. This is not a good attitude with which to write an unbiased editorial; it is reminiscent of the attitude and position taken by the New Republic, which, although not voicing any particular criticism of Keating, came out for kennedy.

Specifically, I do not feel that in your editorial you have sufficiently identified Keating with "homegrown mediocrity" and Kennedy with "imported excellence." Those identifications are, in fact, quite unfair. You mention Kennedy's intemperate pursuit of James Hoffa, and his sponsorship (now withdrawn) of a distasteful wiretapping bill: are these actions consonant with excellence? You gloss over his involvement with the New York City bosses: many other observers, however, have been very disappointed that no outright repudiation of bossism has been made. This situation smacks more of expediency than excellence. You state that "In no way has he (Kennedy) reneged... on his promise (to fight for reform)." Not reneging is no way to fight for reform. The positive action needed has not been forthcoming.

Also you make no mention of kennedy's attempts to elect himself largely through the strength of the Kennedy name. Let me point out that I am the farthest thing possible from being anti-Kennedy; I was deeply hurt by President Kennedy's death. In fact, this emotion is the reason that I am troubled by Robert Kennedy's ill-advised use of his brother's name in this campaign. The Kennedy name, representative of the finest qualities to be found in this country, should not be dragged all over New York state like a pet seal, brought out to perform at will.

As I stated above, I do not believe that you made your case for Robert Kennedy's "excellence." Neither do I feel that you have adequately documented Kenneth Keating's "mediocrity." You leave out Sen. eating's name from your list of moderate Republicans. This action is indeed strange, as it is all too often my father's name, not Sen. Keating's that is missing. The far-righters would never be guilty of such sin of omission. Again showing your pro-Democratic bias, you demean Sen. Keating's repudiation of the Republican national ticket, attributing it out of hand to expediency instead of principle. Had you been aware of the tremendous pressure, and vicious mail such a stand elicits, I am not sure you would have shrugged it off so easily. Then, too, why not play up Robert Kennedy's poor relations with London Johnson, relations which caused him to leave Washington and come to New York in the first place?

Most egregious of all, however, is your statement, either incredibly naive of incredibly uniformed, that "Keating's defeat would be almost meaningless in terms of national politics." This opinion is indeed absurd. Keating's defeat would immediately and most joyously be recognised by the pro-Goldwater forces as the defeat of a dedicated enemy. In the wake of San Francisco, the forces trying to recall the Republican party to its senses are all too weak already; Keating's loss would perhaps be fatal. I hope no one assumes that an all-powerful Democratic party would be fine for the United States; like any one-party domination of the country, it would be disastrous.

Keating has been a fine senator for New York. I am not asking that you support him, however. Just please recognize his dilemma, and that of the Republican party, and then try to state his case fairly. Clifford P. Case III '66