Slouch
by Jim Earle
OcTZA'D
“It sounds like a good idea, but if you do call a press
conference to announce that you will not be a candidate,
do you think anyone will care?”
Opinion
Hail to Hotard Hall
They call it the Hotard Hilton, and it’s the crummiest
dorm on campus.
What is weird is that its residents love it.
It must be a perverse kind of pride that inspires them.
Maybe they love it because it’s so low-rent that the rooms
don’t even have phones. Or maybe because the rent actu
ally is low — the lowest on campus.
Whatever their attachment, the residents were alarmed
when they learned the University planned to close the
dorm this spring for renovation.
Evidently the University had a change of heart. On
Thursday residents were told they could stay in the dorm.
According to Dr. John Koldus, vice president for student
services, the administration decided to keep the dorm
open after Hotard residents expressed concern about the
closing.
Residents would rather live with noise from nearby con
struction and wait until summer for fixing up their dorm.
Besides, what’s a few more months?
Hotard hasn’t been significantly changed since it was
built in 1939 to house food service workers.
It is named after J.C. Hotard, who was supervisor of food
services from 1937 to 1944. It cost about $75,000.
During the 1940s, workers lived four to a room. One
area of the dorm was reserved for Anglo-Saxons, another
for Blacks and Mexicans, and a few rooms were partitioned
off for maids.
Food service workers occupied all of Hotard until late
1962, when students began moving into the dorm. Hotard
has been fully occupied by students since 1971.
And they will be able to stay in the dorm this spring.
Congratulations.
the small society
by Brickman
WHAT^THEr
PU T£>Uf£ ?
Washington Star Syndicate. Inc.
/o~3a 'r5f 2 ’i
The Battalion
u s p S 045 360
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the editor should not exceed 300 words and are
subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The
editorial staff reserves the right to edit such letters and does
not guarantee to publish any letter. Each letter must be
signed, show the address of the writer and list a telephone
number for verification.
Address correspondence to Letters to the Editin', The
Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building, College
Station, Texas 77843.
Represented nationally by National Educational Adver
tising Services, Inc., New York City, Chicago and Los
Angeles.
The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from
September through May except during exam and holiday
Periods and the summer, when it is published on Tuesday
hrough Thursday.
Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester; $33.25 per
school year; $35.00 per full year. Advertising rates furnished
on request. Address. The Battalion, Room 216, Reed
McDonald Building, College Station, Texas 77843.
United Press International is entitled exclusively to the
use for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it.
Rights of reproduction of all other matter herein reserved.
Second-Class postage paid at College Station, TX 77843.
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Liz Newlin
Managing Editor Andy Williams
Asst. Managing Editor Dillard Stone
News Editors Karen Comelison-
and Michelle Burrowes
Sports Editor Sean Petty
City Editor Roy Bragg
Campus Editor Keith Taylor
Focus Editors Beth Calhoun and
Doug Graham
Staff Writers Meril Edwards, Nancy
Andersen, Louie Arthur, Richard Oliver,
Mark Patterson, Carolyn Blosser, Kurt
Allen, Debbie Nelson, Rhonda Watters
Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschper Jr.
Photographers Lynn Blanco, Sam
Stroder, Ken Herrera
Cartoonist . Doug Graham
Opinions expressed in The Battalion are
those of the editor or of the writer of the
article and are not necessarily those of the
University administration or the Board of
Regents. The Battalion is a non-profit, self-
supporting enterprise operated by students
as a university and community newspaper.
Editorial policy is determined by the editor.
VIEWPOINT
ca
The Battalion
Texas A&M University
Tuesday
October 30, 1979
Broder
Democratic clans evaluate each otha
using migratory campaigners’ reports
By DAVID S. BRODER
WASHINGTON — One of the features of
the fight now beginning for the Democra
tic presidential nomination is the unusual
degree of knowledge each side has of the
political strengths and weaknesses of the
other. The Carters and the Kennedys are
thought of as separate clans, but there has
been enough migration between the two
camps to make each of them privy to what
the other might prefer to consider
privilege information.
I am not referring here to dark secrets of
the past, but rather to tactical tendencies,
personnel strengths and weaknesses —
the sort of information one professional
sports team acquires when it picks up a
player from another.
Jimmy Carter’s pollster, Pat Caddell,
for example, has his business base in Bos
ton and did some polling in 1976 for Ted
Kennedy’s Senate campaign. Two of the
top Carter operatives in the recent Florida
skirmish, John Rendon and Jerry Vento,
are acquistions from the Kennedy camp.
There are many others in policy jobs in
the Carter administration who worked
closely with one or another of the Ken
nedy brothers in the past and know their
way of operating.
But Kennedy has equally good sources
of inside information on how Carter did it
in 1976 — and how he is likely to try again.
Carl Wanner, the top political aide in
Kennedy s office, took leave from his
union job in 1976 to help set up the elec
tion — day voter turnout operation for
Carter in the key industrial states. Gerard
P. Doherty, the Boston lawyer who is sure
to be one of the senior Kennedy opera
tives, ran New York state for Carter in
1976 — with Kennedy’s blessing, of
course. Mark Siegel, coordinator of the
draft-Kennedy operations, monitored the
1976 Carter campaign from a senior staff
job at the Democratic National Committee
and worked 18 months for Hamilton Jor
dan at the White House.
Without necessarily attributing the
views to the above-named gentlemen, it is
possible to note something rather interest
ing about the attitudes of the two camps as
the struggle begins.
Each of them seems sublimely confident
of the ability of its candidate to out-
campaign the other. And each of them
thinks it has spotted a fairly serious gap in
the other’s preparation for the game.
The Carterites believe that Kennedy
will be sharply handicapped by his lack of
experience with the new rules of nominat
ing politics, including the limitations on
campaign spending and the intricate re
quirements for delegate-selection.
“He and his people haven’t played this
game since 1968,” said one Carter
strategist. “They’re used two writing a
check for whatever they have to spend,
and hiring whoever they want to hire. But
this is a game of limited money and lots of
volunteers, and it’s going to seem very
strange to them.”
Whether that is the case is open to ques
tion. Certainly, the Kennedys have never
had to skimp for money in past campaigns.
But Steve Smith, the prospective cam
paign manager, is — among other things
— a dam good businessman who should
know how to stretch a campaign dollar and
stay within a budget.
The effective mobilization of volunteers
has always been a major element of Ken
nedy politics. As for the technicalities of
the new delegate-selection procedures,
Carl Wagner and Mark Siegel probably
know them as well as anyone in the coun-
try
On the Kennedy side, the belief is that,
smart as the Carterites have proved them
selves to be in organizing delegate cau
cuses, they lack the skill and sensitivity
that it takes to hold the competing factions
of the Democratic coalition together
through a long campaign.
The risk that many ofCartersferJ
may not understand “how to l«?jr
Democratic factions from '"
other, or at least from killingyou,'^
Kennedy man put it, strikes this^
as a real one. But there is an ii
footnote to that point.
The one man in the Carter cm
skill in handling the Democratkijj
the Kennedyites do admire is [
Strauss. They saw Strauss as [
man weld the Democrats tog
the 1972 debacle and hold themti
for victory, despite the waveringjj
ter’s 1976 general-election camp^I
Kennedy would have beenlal
Strauss had devoted himself to i
East diplomacy in 1980, rathertlal
nation politics. But, ironically, lie(J
handled his relations with Straussiij
the same way that Carter bungMSsJ
relations with Kennedy.
Strauss is an antagonist Kennd
not need, for he knows both then
ing procedures and the Democtiil
tions. And he plays by the old-jJ
Kennedys respect: Don’t get null
(cj 1979, The WwJiingta
Post Company
Famed
Rudder
OUT OF the west he rode...
CAUSING- HISERY, PAIN, ANGUISH, ere.
Sui Schwinnhund 'Bad BraVces " Raleigh
A+M.
By
The ima
remember*
beat up
cover. Dey
tall skinm
V of
build
<3w~a.r\arvi
Dick West
Can a hot-dog lover find happ
with a habitual hamburger eatd
By DICK WEST
United Press International
WASHINGTON — A Brooklyn
psychiatrist. Dr. Leo Wollman, has under
taken a study of personality differences be
tween people who habitually order ham
burgers at fast food counters and those
who religiously stick to hot dogs.
The need for a research project along
this line has been apparent for a long time.
Wollman’s findings, I expect, will be
applied primarily to marital relations.
The mating game, as it is now played, is
woefully lacking in scientific exactitude.
All too often, couples contemplating mar
riage and not entirely sure whether they
are suited to each other are forced to rely
on such unreliable guidelines as astrologi
cal charts.
If one of them is, say, an Aries, and the
other a Gemini, that is supposed to tell
them something about their chances of hit
ting it off in wedlock. Which is ludicrous
on the face of it.
Dates of birth couldn’t possibly be as
meaningful in match-ups as ascertaining
whether both have hamburger per
sonalities, or both are hot dog types, or
one is one and the other the other.
If I may speak from experience for a
moment, in me you find the classic ham
burger temperament. I have a hamburger
for lunch at least twice a week; hot dogs no
oftener than once a year.
The woman I married, while not totally
averse to hamburgers, will, when pre
sented with an option, almost invariably
go for the hot dog.
Something that is reflected in these
predilections makes for matrimonial un
rest. Wollman presumably will discover
what it is about a hot dog fancier that puts
him or her on a collision course with a
hamburger aficionado. And the world will
be better off for it.
Pending his report, there are some gen
eral observations that can be drawn with at
least as much validity as anything you will
find in the Zodiac.
The archetypical hot dog devotee? 1
bit unstable, impulsive and incite
part their hair on the wrong side,
ture indecisive, they are apt to ,
over which condiments and gam©
| Sw Unk
assist^t
b y'90
Irbetj v
Parking ]
Can
die.
lake tur
Ifansv
t>or
Hamburger enthusiasts
likely to be steady, dependable, sote
too predictable and utterly charmiiii :
a strong penchant for grace unde:'
What you call your basic hot dog freak
tends to be a romantic, with a flair for ad
venture. Probably the main reason he or
she is drawn to hot dogs is because nobody
knows for sure what is inside them.
Hence, they have an air of mystery about
them.
(Nobody knows for sure what is inside a
hot dog lover either, for that matter.)
By nature resolute, they kno»
they want (mustard, pickles and:
and go after it.
Conceivably, Wollman’s study 1 ;
produce a formula under w
burger and hog dog personalitiesc£
together in harmony. Meanwhile,]? 1 '
at your own risk.
I
Letters
Pressure on football coach to win
is disturbing to 17-year Aggie fan
Editor:
Last week’s report that some of our
alumni are again putting an uncomfortable
amount of pressure on our football coach is
most disturbing. It is symptomatic of a
disease that is all too prevalent at major
universities.
We are so obsessed with the game of
football that we have forgotten that it is
just that — a game. Never was this more
graphically displayed than last year when
Emory Bellard felt forced to resign.
Ugliness was the theme of that week.
“Make Emory a memory,” they said.
From the comments that students made to
the Battalion on the day he resigned, it
appeared the man was deserving of the
gallows because our passing game was in
sufficient. We treated him like the scourge
of the community when all he had done
was lose a couple of football games.
Letters to the Battalion in recent weeks
have served as frightening reminders of
that behavior.
I have followed A&M football for 17
years and feel we have every reason to be
proud of this year’s team. Playing the 11th
toughest schedule in the nation, they have
improved from week to week. They have
consistently added to their offensive re
pertoire and continue to play a good de
fense.
And with any amount of luck on a
sprinkling of plays, they would now be in
the Top 20.
But it seems beyond our ability to ap
preciate a game as being exciting and
well-played. Instead we focus solely on the
outcome. Alumni and students alike treat
a loss as a personal affront and at-
their own dignity had somehow bet:
ated.
My only hope is that we treat!."
son better than we did the lasted’
— Paul ^
THOTZ
by Doug Grok'
HOW'S THE LEFTOVER RECYCLlNCr
PRO ORAM OOIW O, SV*6TY?
^AV/FUL, TSOSS. AFTER THE 10’ 1 ' TIME
ITS SERVED, OUR FRIED CHICKEN
IS DECLARCD a crime against
HUMANITY UNDER THE GENEVA ACCOt