Part: 1234         Session: 123         Page 8990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119 of 512

I wrote a series of articles which were entitled “Taft Can't Win.” We were doing our level best, and I certainly was, and Mr. Mars, the then-editor, was very much involved in this and in the outlining and discussion of the editorials. He certainly played a part in those editorials, although I actually wrote them. We were doing our best to convince the Republican delegates at the convention that Taft couldn't win, and therefore shouldn't be nominated. This was not the reason why we were not in favor of Taft, but it was certainly a very good argument to practical politicians why Taft shouldn't be nominated, and we, of course, used this, and I feel it was a perfectly legitimate thing.

So here is a perfect case of where we used the argument of whether or not he could win, although this was not the controlling argument in our own minds, but it certainly was a relevant thing when you're trying to persuade delegates to support a given candidate or not to support a given candidate. I might add as a footnote to this discussion, which goes back to a previous question you asked me, although I was deeply involved in this particular pro-Eisenhower movement and felt this strongly myself, by the time the campaign actually began, after Ike had been nominated and Stevenson had been nominated, and the McCarthy thing proceeded quite strongly, I became more and more disenchanted with Eisenhower. Halfway through the campaign, I renounced Eisenhower, and tried to get the New York Times to switch from Ike to Stevenson. I couldn't persuade the publisher or editor, who are the determining people. After that, after I had submitted my memo explaining why I was going to be for Stevenson, and why I thought the Times should be, I simply didn't write, from then on, on the campaign. I didn't write anything at all on the campaign in the editorial page. Such