"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."