Carping about a Candidate

Until Governor Scranton's belated entry into the Republican presidential race last week, most U.S. newspapers correctly assumed that Barry Goldwater had the nomination sewed up. And most, large and small, didn't like it. Seldom has a presidential candidate--especially a potential Republican leader --evoked such dissatisfaction, dismay and wrath from the cartoonists and editorial writers of the U.S. press.

"It is shocking to realize," said the Denver Post, "that Goldwater's philosophy is now about to become the official political philosophy of Republicans all over the nation." The Post envisioned the consequences: "The repudiation and ultimate destruction of the Republican Party in the United States."

Other newspaper prophets projected much the same future. GOLDWATER'S

WIN COULD DISMEMBER HIS PARTY, read the caption above an editorial in the Louisville Courier-Journal. California, predicted the Detroit News, "has all but assured the party of disaster in November." This conclusion was also drawn by the New York Times: Goldwater's nomination, said the Times, "would be a disaster not only for the Republicans but for all who believe that a vigorous two-party system is necessary to the political health of America."

Difficult Office. The Miami News abandoned hope: "With Senator Goldwater in command of the Republicans, the choice is between moving the country ahead with the Democrats or regressing with the Republicans." The liberal St. Louis Post-Dispatch banked on the possibility that Goldwater might prove too gamy for national consumption. "He arouses a certain degree of delirium among extreme conservatives," said the Post-Dispatch, "but there are not enough of them to win an election."

"If Goldwater is nominated," said the Chicago Sun-Times, "we predict that he will not carry more than two states--not necessarily Maine and Vermont." The Washington Star published a declaration of its own pride at having opposed well before California "a candidate so manifestly unsuited to the high and difficult office he seeks." Said the Nashville Tennessean: "What little identification with the 20th century the Republican Party has been able to achieve was shattered by the galloping hooves of Senator Goldwater's horse back program." Noting his victory in California, the New York Herald Tribune said: "We didn't want him to win.

We don't pretend to be happy that he did. But we salute him for it."

The Trib was joined by the Los Angeles Times. Having urged its readers to spurn Goldwater in the California primary, the Times then bowed to the primary's unpalatable result: "The Times congratulates Goldwater, both for his victory and for the determination to rebuild a unified party. There is no place, now, for anger or abuse."

Healthy Development. Perhaps not. But anger and abuse were just about the only editorial commodities around. Papers that could look upon Goldwater with approval were in the minority. Leading it were the Wall Street Journal and the New York Daily News. "What, pray," asked the Journal, coming to Goldwater's defense, "is so antediluvian about saying that the pendulum . . . between individual freedom and State authority has swung too far to the latter? Plainly, it has." Said the Daily News: "Goldwater's victory in the convention next month would guarantee U.S. citizens a clearcut choice in November, as between conservative and liberal government. That is an option which American voters haven't had for a good many years and we think it's a highly healthy development."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.