National Affairs: Retreat from Jersey

The name of Robert A. Taft was entered in the New Jersey presidential primary on March 6, when the Taft campaign seemed to be rolling with gathering force toward the Republican nomination. That was before Ike Eisenhower walloped Taft in New Hampshire, and before the spectacular call for Ike in Minnesota. Last week, as the lens began to focus on New Jersey, Jersey's Governor Alfred E. Driscoll publicly announced what political observers had long known: he favors Eisenhower.

A Changed Tune. At first Driscoll's announcement didn't seem to bother Bob Taft at all. "We've known Governor Driscoll has been for Ike for months," he told reporters. But within 48 hours his ho-hum attitude had changed. Taft fired an angry blast:

"Because Governor Driscoll has broken his word and has obviously taken steps to corrupt the intent of the preference primary in New Jersey, I have decided not to contend for the preference vote in the New Jersey primary on April 15. Reversing his previous position, Governor Driscoll . . . announced his open support of General Eisenhower, and one of his leading political associates . . . said at the same time that the state Republican organization will actively campaign for the election of General Eisenhower . . .

"It is an atmosphere in which there cannot be a fair contest . . . This action by the governor and other Republican leaders of the state directly repudiates the position taken by the governor in recent weeks . . . Up to the very last opportunity on my part to withdraw or take any other action, the governor maintained his show of neutrality . . . Let the public judge whether or not this is in the interest of fair play or political treachery."

Many a Republican was astonished at this intemperate cry from Taft, who has been using as much regular Republican support as he can get—and that is considerable—in his own primary campaign.

"The Only Reason." Driscoll denied that any word was broken and offered some biting comment: "The supporters of Senator Taft, who include many of our fine citizens, must be sadly disillusioned by the Senator's decision. It is hard for me to believe that what I have read are the words of Senator Taft, for they are obviously the words of poor losers. The record is clear. I have consistently said that I would state my personal preference before the April 15 primary . . . In announcing that my personal preference for the nomination is General Eisenhower, I clearly stated . . . that I would be bound by any decisive vote in our preferential primary, and that if Senator Taft won the nomination I would support him with all the vigor and energy at my command . . . If my personal preference had happened to be Senator Taft, would he then have charged that I destroyed the intent of the preferential primary? . . . The unmistakable fact is that the Taft drive has collapsed as a result of successive setbacks in New Hampshire and Minnesota, and because of the tremendous ground swell of Eisenhower support among the independent-thinking people of New Jersey. That is the reason—and the only reason—Senator Taft has withdrawn . . ."