Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 19, 1980)
Slouch by Jim Earle “J m getting encyclopedias, I belong to all of th ’ book clubs, I have been signed up for at least 50 magazine subscriptions. If I ever find out who did this to me. I’ll kill him!" Opinion Abscam: so what else is new? Politicians work hard at perfecting their graft. Instead of being able to relax like everyone else, these men and women have to work hard. To be elected, they have to give a lot of speeches, eat strange foods and kiss babies. After they’re elected, they have to work even harder. They have to legislate, give more speeches and worry about re-election. In theory, politics is good, hard work. However, a lot of politicians have a hard time doing their Igobs, and apparently, a few of,them even have a hard time Kbeing honest, too. But everybody knows that. We expect politicians to be dishonest. The honest politicians are the ones to worry about. Figure that one out. Political shenanigans like Abscam, Brilab, Watergate, and Teapot Dome surprise no one. If that’s the case — and it is — the news about congress men and state politicians accepting bribes from undercover FBI agents probably isn’t worth mentioning. All these investigations prove is that politicians deserve the public’s mistrust. So, what can be done? Nothing. Unfortunately, a better political system hasn’t been de veloped yet. The only solution I can offer is to keep voting the crooks out of office until we can get it right. This is an election year. the small society by Brickman ...AI2W5 Wco-teY! TfW TP THAM TH&Y A^g: [ApW - Washington Star Syndicate. Inc. Cl2 2-/^ The Battalion usps LETTERS POLICY Lett its to the editor should not exceed 300 uords and are subject to being cut to that length or less if longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit such letUrs and does not guarantee to publish any letter. Each letter must be signed, show the address of the writer and lust a telephone number for verification Address correspondence to le tters to the Editor. The Battalion. Room 216. Reed McDonald Building. College Station. Texas 77643. Represented nationally by National Educational Adver tising Services. Inc.. New York City. Chicago and I/>s Angeles. The Battalion is published Monday through Friday from ieptember through May except during exam and holidav Jeriods 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 hill year. Advertising rates furnished on request. Address: The Battalion. Room 216. Reed McDonald Building. College Station. Texas < < S43 United Press International is entitled exclusively tn-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 < <H43. 045 360 MEMBER ' Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Congress Editor Roy Bragg Associate Editor Keith Taylor News Editor Rusty Cawley Asst. News Editor Karen Cornelison Copy Editor Dillard Stone Sports Editor Mike Burrichter Focus Editor Rhonda Watters City Editor Louie Arthur Campus Editor Diane Blake Staff Writers Nancy Andersen, Tricia Brunhart.Angelique Copeland, Laura Cortez, Meril Edwards, Carol Hancock, Kathleen McElroy, Debbie Nelson, Richard Oliver, Tim Sager, Steve Sisney, Becky Swanson, Andy Williams Chief Photographer Lynn Blanco Photographers Lee Roy Leschper, Paul Childress, Ed Cunnius, Steve Clark 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. 1 he 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 The Battalion Texas A&M University Tuesday February 19, 1980 Kennedy’s ‘victory’ in Maine local Tri ber is like a dog playing checkers By RICH^ Stal By ARNOLD SAWISLAK United Press International The classic shaggy dog story is about the man playing checkers with a cocker spaniel in the park. A passer-by stops and expresses admira tion for the intelligence of the pooch. The man looks up with irritation and says, “Heck, he’s not so smart. I beat him three out of four. ” The recent Maine Democratic caucuses brought that story to mind. President Car ter got 45 percent of the vote; Sen. Edward Kennedy 39 percent; Gov. Edmund G. Brown Jr. 14 percent. Kennedy, who got beat 2-1 in the Iowa caucuses last month and trailed by 19 points in a poll released before the Maine caucuses, called the outcome “a virtual dead heat. His chief Maine supporter, Gov. Joseph Brennan, said Kennedy had won “a great victory.” Jody Powell, speaking for Carter, noted somewhat acidly that where he came from, winning required coming in first. He added: “If Kennedy can’t win in New Eng land, where can he win?” Kennedy’s comeback, in the face of dire predictions, was a feat as remarkable as teaching a dog to play checkers. But it still was a second place effort, and some might consider it even more noteworthy that a Southerner, president or not, could beat a Kennedy in New England. Actually, there was more at stake in Maine than the order of finish in the voting. A little recent history is in order. Six months ago, Carter was at rock bot tom in the polls and Kennedy was way up. It was assumed that if the Massachusetts senator challenged the president, he would be able to get a fast start by winning the early primaries and caucuses in New Eng land. That expectation was reversed when Carter’s poll ratings boomed and Ken nedy’s slumped late in 1979 and when the president beat the senator in the Florida straw votes and the Iowa caucuses. The polls showed Carter ahead in Maine and New Hampshire. There was speculation about Kennedy quitting. By beating the point spread, Kennedy managed to transform a potential disaster into a respectable defeat. If he didn’t have to beat Carter in Maine, he certainly could not have sustained another 22-point loss. So it is not completely illogical that a 6-point loss looked like a tie to the senator and victory to Brennan (whose political cre dibility was on the block even more than Kennedy’s). But Kennedy has two problems, one of which needs solution in the next couple of weeks. There have been a lot of changes in U.S. politics in recent years, but candi- Texas A&M Body Presiden traveled to Was week, and retu awareness of tl sponsibility of tl staff in leading 1 dates still are expected to have raphical power base, a constituenc] will back them against all comers So Kennedy really needs to i trate, in New Hampshire next w«lg Ka p avik joinr the very least m Massachusetts M» leaders Frid j that he does haye a New EngWfl on domestic anc base. If he lost all the New England^ ies, it would he hard to see howk, paign would be regarded as anyl dead. The second Kennedy problemissi; The basic purpose of the caucuses a:,: maries is to divide national conventie legates among the candidates. Thei date who gets the most votes getstfc: delegates; the candidate who gets delegates gets the nomination. So Kennedy has to start beatingCat some of these primaries. Ifhedoesii can’t win the nomination. And that is the checker game is all about | briefing, held i I included addre cabinet mem! Carter. Kapavik said t sed was the ins istration and th tion of women i “The main tl appeared to be draft registrati speakers stresse ference betwee tion and the ad “They felt sin sented in 92 j ALTHOUGH ITMOOWRIY IDCNIJTS JIMMEE WAUtaTMTHTEDDY MOVING UP ON THERML|. FiAKY JERRY RINGING iJP ^FtAKEEjERRK' ANWjjiTHLESSTtWt JWD WEEKS ISO,ITS ur United Pr Andy Gibb, um set, has so vith John Belu vision’s Saturda And they bot ammon with c Dr. J. ffoir assorted cast o by the junior h They’re all ] and, sometime: tin a new maga students havinj ‘Many of tl (learned most ol tion skills, but (anyway,” said > Carter needs to end exile in White House for sake of 1980 campaign By DAVID S. BRODER It has been evident for some weeks that President Carter’s deicision to reject per sonal, public participation in the campaign for the Democratic nomination as long as the American hostages remain in Tehran is detrimental to the policy dialogue the pub lic wants to hear in an election year. But now it is becoming that his self isolation is also damaging to him and to his presidency. The best evidence of that was the Wednesday evening press conference, which mixed serious discussion of substan tive domestic and international issues with some exceptionally rough political invec tive in a manner that was disconcerting and, ves, divisive. Perhaps, if we are fortunate, the hos tages will be released soon and Carter can do what he is plainly eager to do — go out and campaign for renomination. But if that does not happen, the President really needs to take another look at his pledge to abstain, for it is hurting him politically, frustrating him personally and exacerbat ing the divisions within the party and coun try that Carter says he is anxious to contain. The questioning of the President at his first televised White House press confer ence in over two months was exceptionally pointed — and Carter was in very good form in his replies. On issues ranging from draft registration and energy prices to Yugoslavia and the defense budget, he gave the kind of answers a presidential press conference ideally ought to provide — clear insights into the tone and direction of the Chief Executive’s thoughts. In that respect, it was a model of what a press conference ought to be and a remin der that the country is deprived of some thing valuable when there is such a long interval between these sessions. But when Carter was asked political questions about Sen. Edward M. Ken nedy’s campaign criticisms of his foreign policy, a different, jarring note entered the proceedings. The President unloaded on his challenger a series of verbal blockbus ters that seemed out of place for a man so assertedly devoted to national unity. Let there be no mistake: I am too oil to be shocked when one politician says another is guilty of exaggerations, misrepresentations and plain falsehoods. And Carter, in my judgement, had every reason to take umbrage at Kennedy’s harsh attacks on his conduct of foreign policy. The senator’s contention that the seizure of the hostages was the “predictable” con sequence of the admission of the Shah to this country for medical treatment carried the ugly implication that American sanctu ary is subject to veto by any mob of mili tants that might be affronted by an act of compassion. His claims that Carter dragged his feet on negotiating the release of the hostages or was oblivious to the Russian threat to Afghanistan are equally open to rebuttal. But the place for those rebuttals is the same place from which the attacks came — a campaign platform, not a press conference. To unleash sucha<* terattack from a presidential forum, live on all four networks, whentherefl no comparable opportunity for rep( really to use the White House as) tected base from which the Presideal pet-bombs” his political challenger, Carter is entitled to defend his poll) the length and the pitch of voice aid Kennedy has critized it. But compi the rebuttal into the compass ofaf conference answer invites the kindofl gerated and divisive rhetoric whichOj in fact, employed. It would be far better for the Pres* for the office and for the country ifkf' to end his self-imposed political edit! and make his campaign speeches fro* stump — not from White House ne* ferences. (c) 1980, The Washington PostComl thotz By Doug Graha* Po F< pi lohi Le spe "The Unive What Texas You" Fet Noon Adrr