2A
Thursday, October 31, 1974
University Daily Kansan
McGovern, Dole sacrifice votes for national spotlight
By ROY CLEVENGER
Bob Dole and George McGovern are far apart politically, but this year they have something in common.
Both represent agricultural states in the U.S. Senate. Both achieved positions of national prominence in 1972 at the expense of support at home. And now both are fighting for their political lives in uphill reelection campaigns.
Dole, 51, was national chairman of the Republican party for two years; he was chairman at the time of President Richard M. Nixon's landslide re-election victory in 1972 and at the time of the Watergate breakin.
No one has directly linked Dole with the break-in or coverup. In fact, the Senate
Because of the men and the issues involved, intense national attention has been focused on the two races, one as a bellwether of the effects of Watergate and the other as a test to see how far a fresh face can go in politics.
Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Practices—the Watergate Committee-completely cleared him of any involvement.
However, Dole's strong support of Nixon throughout the early months of the Watergate scandals has cost him much support at home. And many people still suspect that anyone with a position that high must or should have guessed that something wrong was going on at the Committee for the Re-Election of the President.
For Roy, the meaning of the campaign is clear. If he is elected the traditional Republican domination in the state will be shattered, he said last month in a Kansan interview. He would be the first Democrat sent to the Senate from Kansas since 1934.
Dole's opponent is Bill Roy, 48, a two-term congressman and relative newcomer to politics. Roy is one of only 210 Americans who are both a doctor and a lawyer.
He says the race also has great national importance.
"Bob Dole is a symbol of a certain type of politics, a type of politics that should disappear from the face of the earth."
The heat of the campaign has been expended largely on bickering between the candidates and their staffs, and as a result Kansans are less than clear on the candidates' positions on the major issues inflation, abortion, health care and services for the elderly.
Both men have relied on numerous personal appearances and lots of advertising in their campaigns. Although no complete current figures are available, total spending by the two easily may reach $1 million.
Roy has called for the campaign to be a referendum on integrity in government: to Dole that means a referendum on Watergate.
Dole is stressing his seniority and national prominence,
He also is relying heavily on national speakers brought into the state. So far, he has gotten campaign help from Rogers C. B. Morton, secretary of the interior; Nelson A. Rockefeller, now vice president; designate; Sen. Lowell Weicker, R-Conn.; Sen. Howard Baker, R-Tenn., and Gerald R. Ford, vice president at the time of his visit. Former Cabinet member Elliot Richardson spoke here Oct. 16, and Dole has been trying unsuccessfully to get Secretary of State Henry A. Kissinger to lecture here.
President Ford will come to Kansas the weekend before the election to campaign for Dole.
Both candidates say they expect the outcome to be close; only Roy predicts sure victory.
Polls have indicated that Dole's early lead disappeared as Roy became better known. The latest polls, however, show Dole again tied or slightly ahead.
Robert J. (Bob) Dole
Whatever the outcome, the race will be seen as the clearest indication of the effects of Watergate on the Republican party.
"I might say being national chairman hasn't been an asset in my election," Dole said at a rally in Wichita recently. "It's a tough year to be a Republican; let's face it."
Being a Democrat isn't a guarantee of reelection, either, if McGovern is any indication.
McGovern sought the presidency in 1972 and lost 49 states, including his own—South Dakota-by 54 per cent to 46 per cent.
That presidential race is at the heart of his troubles. McGovern is immensely popular as a senator, but many Dakotans thought him too bold for running for president. They think he deserted them then, and they think he intends to do it again in 1976. McGovern has disavowed any future presidential plans, but a recent Gallup poll indicated that he was second only to Alabama Gov. George Wallace in support for possible 1976 party candidates.
McGovern's opponent is Leo Thorsness, 42 a Medal of Honor winner who spent six years :1967-1973) in the infamous Hanoi Hilton prison camp in North Vietnam.
Thorsness' aim is as much to defeat McGovern as it is to win a Senate seat for himself.
While he was a POW, Thorsness was forced to listen to recordings of antiwar speeches by McGovern and other senators. Because of his political views—and to pass time in prison—he dreamed up a campaign against McGovern. He plotted campaign strategy and even rehearsed speeches in front of fellow POWs.
His campaign has stressed renewed patriotism, a return to moral principles in government and private life and a strong free enterprise system.
The main issue in the campaign, however, has been McGovern, and Thorsness has done well when he has stuck to that one issue.
McGovern's support at home continued to drop after the 1972 election and, by the summer of 1973, he appeared to be in serious trouble.
McGovern's campaign workers have said that they were never worried, that Thorsness would falter as soon as his views and campaigning style became better known.
Exactly that has happened, especially in the past few weeks. Thorsness has come out in favor of a fixed income tax rate for all people regardless of income and sterilization of welfare mothers.
Far more damaging, he has called for the federal government to get out of agriculture. That doesn't sit well with the voters in rural South Dakota.
McGovern,'' the leading proponent of the "new politics" in 1972, now is stressing his national prominence and seniority—two terms in the Senate, second in line to take command of the Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
McGovern's stance and the style of his campaign have helped confuse voters and blunt his image as a fresh style of politician. Now Thorsness is the newcomer, and McGovern looks like an old-style politician
Although McGovern may have the money and traditional support, Thorsness seems to have the momentum and is campaigning at a prodigious rate.
McGovern appears to be slightly ahead in the polls now, but the race is too close to call.
In a sense, Watergate is the primary issue in both these races. McGovern campaigned largely on Watergate in 1972, and the downfall of the Nixon presidency has vindicated him and his campaign, but not enough to insure his re-election. And Watergate is certainly at the seat of Dole's troubles.
In different times, both men might be looking forward to easy re-election, and both might be looking further ahead to possible presidential races. Because of Watergate and the strange turn of American politics, both men may see their political careers shattered Nov. 5
Whatever the outcomes, American politics is likely to be changed, and these races will be studied and remembered for a long, long time to come.
Dole, Roy voting records differ
By MARK ZELIGMAN
A complaint often heard among voters is that there are no clear choices between candidates in elections. In this year's U.S. Senate race in Kansas, no one can make that complaint, at least according to the voting records of the two candidates.
From information gathered from Congressional Quarterly and Ralph Nader's Congress Project, which focuses on selected key votes, it is clear that the voting records of Republican candidate Bob Dole and Democratic candidate Bill Roy are different.
National defense is one area where there is a difference. Dole's voting record indicates a hawkish view of military affairs. Examples are his votes in 1971-1973 against reducing overseas troops, against cutting funds to Indochina in 1971 and 1973 and
against the McGovern-Hattfield amendment of 1970 setting a deadline for withdrawals from Indochina. In 1972, Dole voted against extending the draft for one year instead of two.
Dole has voted consistently to cut federal spending in most areas of government. He voted against a bill for public works jobs in 1971, against extending the Office of Economic Opportunity in 1971 and for killing a welfare reform amendment in 1972. In 1969, he voted against an increase in social security and in 1973 voted to cut the proposed social security increase in half.
Roy voted for withdrawal from Indochina in 1973 and voted in 1971 for a one year of extension of the draft instead of two.
Dole voted in 1971 against a bill for child care and development and a legal service program for the poor, against an increase for Project Headstart in 1970 and for a bill
cutting spending in the department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) in 1970.
Dole, however, has consistently voted against cutting military spending. His votes have ranged from opposing the cutting of funds to Indochina in 1971 to opposing cuts in the military budget.
Roy, on the other hand, has voted several times for cuts in defense spending and foreign aid yet has voted to support funding health care, public works and anti-poverty programs.
In 1971, Roy voted against deleting welfare reform, for a bill for child care facilities and for a legal service and child care program. He voted not to deny food stamps to strikers in 1973.
An education lobby representing the National Education Association (NEA) rates members of Congress on how they
vote according to the NEA position. On five votes that NEA considered important in 1973, Roy voted "right" five times. Included were yes votes on a labor-HEW appropriation bill and on an amendment to maintain the school lunch program.
On five key votes in 1973, NEA rated Dole as having voted "right" once. Included were votes against increasing federal subsidies for school lunch programs and against a labor-HEW appropriation bill.
Agriculture has become a big issue in the campaign. Roy voted for an appropriations bill last July to give about $13.5 billion to agriculture, environmental and consumer protection programs for fiscal 1975. About$ 7.5 billion of the total amount would go to agriculture in some way.
Dole voted for the House version but voted
Continued on Next Page