Viewpoint
%9M
The Battalion
Wednesday
Texas A&M University
May 14, 1980
u
iAUSt:
Crystal ball foresees Muskie as
Demos' compromise candidate
d-b
Hostage crisis could force Carter
to make final move — out ofrace
by DAVID S. BRODER
In the first days since the sickening news came of the
failure of the secret effort to rescue the hostages in Iran,
Americans have been doing what they always do in a
moment of crisis. They have rallied around the Presi
dent as a symbol of order and authority in a world of
anarchy and danger.
The instinctive reaction was deepened by the national
anger at the Iranian authorities — whose crudity knows
no limits — for making a public display in their capital ol
the charred bodies of the eight Americans who died in
the rescue mission.
But when those first reactions of patriotism and in
jured national pride have faded, it is as certain as any
thing can be that Jimmy Carter will face the most troubl
ing questions of his presidency. These questions may
even force him to ask himself whether he can deal with
this crisis while at the same time continuing his tor
tured, self-limited campaign for renomination and re-
election.
The coming turn of events was foreshadowed for me
by two letters that were on my desk, awaiting answers,
as the terrible news of the Iranian rescue attempt came
in. I cite them, not because I agree with them, but
because they speak so clearly to the credibility crisis that
will soon face this president.
where he might be willing to take the people of this
country in order to be re-elected.
The second letter, written two days earlier, on April
9, in London, came from an acquaintance active in
British politics.
“As you know from our conversations last year,” he
wrote, “1 have found your president a puzzle from the
beginning, but I never shared the view of some of my
colleagues that his unpredictability was a menace. But I
must say his handling of the hostage situation strikes me
as so contradictory in its own terms that I am becoming
alarmed.
“You have no idea — unless you are watching from the
outside — how unsettling the whole world finds the
spectacle of the American President, on whose judge
ment and will we all rely, allowing his schedule, his
activities, his policy and his dealings with his allies to be
dictated by that gang of hoodlums holding your people
in Tehran.
“The policy of patience made sense to us at first, on
the assumption that he was subordinating the hostage
issue’ to the larger strategic considerations in the region.
But he has let the hostage issue subordinate everything
else in his own thinking, and is asking us in the alliance
to do the same thing.
by STEVE GERSTEL
WASHINGTON — The Democratic National
Convention is underway at Madison Square Garden in
New York City.
That joyous old song of Democrats — “Happy Times
Are Here Again” — bravely blares but fails to lessen the
gloom gripping party leaders and delegates.
Demonstrators ring the Garden: unemployed, anti
nukes, anti-draft, Hispanics, blacks, gays and, mostly,
anti-administration.
Veterans of Chicago, 1968, have an uneasy feeling but
there is no violence. New York’s finest are in control and
Mayor Ed Koch is no Mayor Richard Daley.
But the delegates — the leaders and the sheep —
ignore the demonstrations to ponder the grim choice
they have to make.
President Carter, who accepted the 1976 nomination
in this city and this hall, has come into the convention
with several hundred votes more than the 1,666 he
needs to go over the top.
But Ted Kennedy, written olf several times during
the primaries, has stayed in the race, waiting for Carter
to self-destruct.
In a desperate gamble to deny the president a second
nomination, Kennedy has asked the convention to aban
don the temporary rule which binds a delegate to a
candidate for the first ballot.
Despite the efforts of Bob Strauss and the pleadings of
the president and his top government officials, wavering
Carter delegates defect. The rule is broken. The con
vention is wideopen.
Carter, the soft-spoken southerner who catapulted
from obscurity to the White House, is still the favorite of
many Democrats. But others question his ability to win
in November.
Inflation is double-digit, the recession is worse than
expected, unemployment is high and getting higher,
interest rates have come down — but not much, the
hostages are still in Tehran and the Russians are still in
Afghanistan.
But Kennedy cannot take advantage of Carter’s ob
vious weaknesses. His troops are loyal — more loyal
than Carter’s — but there are not enough of them.
The delegates cannot forget the baggage which sad
dles Kennedy. Nor can they ignore the polls which
consistently show that a third of the voters willnol
their ballots for the last of the Kennedy brothers.
The grim realization sinks in — Carter and Kenm
must both be denied the nomination. A comproi
candidate must be found.
But the possibilities are limited.
The compromise candidate must have the supj
active not tacit, of Carter and Kennedy or the nomi
tion is worthless.
The compromise candidate must have instant
identification. With less than three months before
election, it is too late for an unknown.
The compromise candidate must have the
power to once again unite the traditional elementsofl
Democratic party — liberals, labor, ethnics, the
blacks — and reach out to the growing number of
pendents and the newly-minted affluent.
One of the first mentioned is Vice President Wi
Mondale, a protege of Hubert Humphrey and a a
of a liberal record only slightly smirched in thelasttlm
and a half years.
Mondale, although popular with all segments of
party, is finally ruled out by his close association
and fervent support of Carter’s policies.
Penally, after many trial balloons are floated and pii?
tured, the delegates settle on a candidate.
He is Secretary of State Edmund Sixtus Muslde,
Muskie, independent, stubborn and trigji
tempered, is chosen as the candidate who can healj
deep wounds within the party and carry the figfil
Reagan in the months ahead.
His credentials are impressive: Secretary of State,
years in the Senate, four years as governor oUf
irity of
itisfied
ig cont<
[ill Clay
race as
e" can
Washi:
d cha
(lack Ca
to st
ipose h
legal
ie Brila
inrth te:
But Wi
t cont
case m
e lead
ihn Br
ewis,
jlayton’s
“I exp
fected,”
he is
ant c
ough v
Both
[aimed
lough \
lair in J
Un
[WASH
rurt ruf
lal sus
Dt violate
vice presidential candidate in 1968 and a contended dice di
ents fro:
The ma
the presidential nomination in 1972.
A long-time favorite of Carter’s, who considered
as his running-mate four years ago and named hirast dremei
retary of state, Muskie also comes from the same ^
wing of the party as Kennedy.
An excellent although not enthusiastic campaign
Muskie showed his appeal to the traditional Democr; «g ut ..
strongholds in 1968. His tenure as head of the Sen ni
Budget Committee showed he could cut spendingpn f (
rams even when to do so ran against his instincts.
Far-fetched? Probably. But not impossible.
One, written on April 11, came fron an Atlanta busi
nessman, who said at the outset, “I confess to being a
Republican and ... a non-supporter of Carter.
“When former Ambassador (William) Sullivan was in
Atlanta about three months ago ... he stated that in
February of 1979, after militants invaded the (Tehran)
embassy and were driven back ... he sent a cable to the
State Department to the effect that if the Shah were
brought into this country, the embassy and its personnel
would be taken over.
“In October of 1979, Carter’s polls gave him a historic
low rating of 76 percent negative. He brought the Shah
into this country, claiming humanitarian reasons, and
the embassy was taken over. The world knows what that
did for Carter’s campaign, reversing his negative rating
to a highly positive one.
“Mr. Carter is now back, according to the polls, to a 68
percent negative rating. What risks will he now be
willing to take to reverse the scale? I’ve already admit
ted I am biased where Carter is concerned, but this is
predicated on 12 years of watching him in Georgia. He is
the most politically saturated man I’ve ever known ...
and he can rationalize his motives without any difficulty
whatsoever. I am, quite seriously, concerned about
“The cynics over here — including some of your own
colleagues in the press — are saying that he is using this
issue to hold off his domestic political challengers. I
hope you can explain what is going on, or, at least, assure
me that the worst interpretation is not justified. ’
I have written both men that my own belief is that the
situation in Iran after the failure of the rescue effort is
grim enough in its consequences to need no deepening
by doubts about the President’s motives — doubts
which I personally do not share.
Carter's handling of Iran crisis
taking toll on his administration
mot be
foresee;
actions,
tion can
tions on
at they
asonabl)
ting res;
Tneruli
Isl;
ied a ]
m for th
b driver
creed ii
But that suspicion will not be dissipated by my letters,
nor by this column, nor will it easily be ended by the
words of the president himself. The resignation of Sec
retary of State Vance assured that the decision to
attempt the rescue will be a matter of both domestic and
international debate.
President Carter may, in time, find that the hostage
crisis is incompatible with politics as usual, in a far
more fundamental way that he supposed when he first
made that comment last in November. He may find
that only by ending his status as a candidate can he gain
the freedom of action and credibility of motive he
needs to deal with the deepening crisis in Iran.
(c) 1980, The Washington Post Co.
Female middies
by HELEN THOMAS
United Press International
WASHINGTON — President Carter has said for many
months that the American hostages have been in his mind
every waking moment. He said it again to a gathering of
community leaders this week.
But there is strong evidence that high visibility of the Ira
nian crisis is now taking a political toll on the administration,
and presidential aides have recommended that it get a lower
profile at the White House.
Carter also has decided to end his self imposed exile against
travel outside of Washington until the hostages are safely
home.
The frustrations of the last six months and the ill-fated rescue
mission all have added up to a change of signals. Carter’s
political strategists are buoyed that he has decided to come out
of the Rose Garden.
The problem is not that Carter has done badly against Sen.
Edward Kennedy by staying in the White House. If anything,
they are saying that he has the Democratic nomination sewed
up.
But Ronald Reagan, the apparent Republican winner, has
gained in the polls and is now perhaps too close for comfort. So,
Carter is hitting the road again.
Many newspaper editorials have applauded his decision to
move around the country and to adopt a benign neglect
talents.
Whiled
s to the
lat the n
tool for i
iparently
fee to t
The stal
is “subt
Bl
approach to the hostage situation.
Carter has been faulted for the concentration on Iran«
some critics saying that he has ignored the nation’s oti«
pressing problems, particularly inflation.
In an appearance before the League of Women Votersi
cently, Carter did not mention Iran.
Little is said these days from the administration end on
whereabouts and the condition of the hostages. But it is unit
stood that the location of their captivity is known. . ,
Back to the drawing board is the order of the day -i n .
reassess and to try another round of quiet diplomacy, fwF
that the Iranians by the time a new Parliament is organized*
see the light.
Carter has not fared badly politically in the ordeal. ?»
showed that for months, the American people willingly backi
his policy of patience. Then, when their patience and 1
began to run out, he tried the high-risk rescue missionsi
failed.
And he found out what his predecessors — particularlyJoi
F. Kennedy after the Bay of Pigs invasion — had learnel
Americans generally feel it’s better to have tried and fails
than never to have tried at all.
His polls are up again even though he did put the lives cl i
least some of the hostages in jeopardy.
So he has a temporary reprieve — time to try and naildo«j
four more years at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.
Oil cha
Tune ii
p UJS0IL«
By
the small society
by Brickmafl
First women at Annapolis end four years in fishbowl
by JOHN W. FRECE
United Press International
ANNAPOLIS, Md. — Elizabeth Belzer,
who probably will be the first woman to
graduate from the U.S. Naval Academy,
knows a misconception about the
academy’s women when she hears one.
“I’m not doing less. I’m doing different,”
she said when asked if the modified physic
al requirements for female midshipmen
meant the women were doing less than the
men. “My ability is different and I there
fore do something that is different.
Belzer has been doing something diffe
rent since she and 80 other young women
arrived in Annapolis four years ago to snap
135 years of tradition and break many a
crusty seaman’s heart by enrolling in the
school that has trained America’s naval
officers since 1845.
Of the original 81, 55 remain. All are
expected to graduate May 28.
When they do, they will end four years of.
life in a fishbowl, years in which they have
been watched, interviewed, tested, com
pared, photographed, criticized, and at
last, almost reluctantly, accepted and even
praised.
“They have proven themselves over the
four years, ’’ said Cal Shintani, 21, of Odes
sa, one of about 900 male midshipmen who
also will graduate at the end of May.
“They’re trying just as hard to accomplish
the same goals.”
Shintani’s hesitant acceptance of his
female classmates began aboard a Navy pat
rol boat the summer after his plebe year.
“We had a girl down in the engine room
and a fire broke out. She handled the fire
and still ran all the engines,” he recalled.
“Before that, I wasn’t sure how women
would react under pressure, but I was pret
ty impressed with that.
Which is not to say the women have not
been ridiculed or resented, or even booed
last fall en masse by the males while Adm.
Thomas Hayward, the Chief of Naval Oper
ations, lookd on with a grin.
“You just don’t put women in a tradition
ally male institution without having some
rough spots,” said Rear Adm. William P.
Lawrence, academy superintendent.
“Young men are proud of the so-called —
it’s not my term — the ‘rite of passage to
manhood, said Lawrence. “To the young
men, it is a point of pride: they’ve met the
challenge. They may perceive (with
women at the academy) that that image
would be removed.
Resentment against the women, keen
the first year, was mostly forgotten the next
two, but has resurfaced as the soon-to-
graduate women have regained the spot
light.
Male middies eagerly joke about how
news stories of their graduation will list the
names of 50 or so women, but will never
mention the 900 men who also receive di
plomas and commissions.
Some, such as Midshipman John Elnits-
ky, think academy officials sometimes have
nudged the women into leadership posi
tions because they are on public view.
“The ‘powers that be’ sometimes try to
help them prove themselves’ too much,”
said the 21-year-old senior. “It seemed like
whenever you came down to a choice be
tween a man or a woman who were equal,
the woman got it.”
Midshipmen of both sexes often are riled
at Congress’ refusal to permit women to fly
planes or serve on ships that might go into
combat, a limitation that has reduced them
to a second-class status.
“I’d like to be able to say I can go on a
destroyer or a cruiser, or fly planes like the
guys,” said Belzer. “But the fact is that we
have moved ahead (with increased oppor
tunities each year since admission). The
men realize Congress is the one in control
of this — not the women. ”
Shintani thinks the men and women
should be treated the same, but Elnitsky
believes the congressional distinctions are
valid.
“I’m not in favor of letting women fight,”
the Allentown, Pa., native said. “I wouldn’t
want my sister out there fighting with a
platoon of Marines. ”
The academy’s women, however, have
broken new ground with everything they
have done, and most think the combat res
trictions eventually will be eliminated.
“I know it’s going to come,” said Melissa
Harrington of Fayetteville, N.Y., who in
four years at Annapolis has grown accus
tomed to meeting challenges formerly re
served for males, such as cruising on Navy
ships, parachuting or handling the sensi
tive controls of a jet fighter.
Since the beginning, the female mids
have shared with the men virtually every
academy experience, even living on the
same halls of Bancroft Hall, the academy’s
mammoth dormitory.
Some have even dated their male coun
terparts, although Harrington said with a
laugh that for the males “it’s not a presti
gious thing.”
Nevertheless, as many as eight of the 55
who should graduate this May, including
Belzer, are expected to marry either a
classmate or a midshipman who graduated
in the last couple of years.
Despite that statistic, no one inter
viewed said there has ever been a serious
problem with what the military call “frater
nization” since the women were admitted.
Woo-goTf
IF A AW
LlV&
W^LP...
Training for the women — 357 have been
admitted in four years — is virtually iden
tical to that for the men.
Academically, there is no difference,
although the women tend to enter with
higher verbal test scores than men and low
er scores in math, and prefer majors in the
humanities or social studies in greater
numbers than the men.
All, however, graduate with bachelor of
science degrees.
Physically, the requirement differences
are slight. Women are permitted a little
more time to run the mile or the obstacle
course and they do a different type of pul-
lup.
Lawrence said the main physical differ
ences are in upper body strength and over
all endurance, but said even those have
been reduced by improved high school
physical education programs for women.
Comparative statistics are distorted by
the 17-to-l male-female ratio, but so far an
average of about one-in-three of the women
admitted has left before graduation com
pared with about one-in-four for the men.
A four-year education costs about $89,700.
The 55 senior women are from 24 states,
the most — eight — from Texas.
Of the 26 in the first class who left, six
were gone by the end of plebe summer and
18 had left by the end of the first year.
The Battalion
U S P S 045 360
LETTERS POLICY
MEMBER
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 Editor, The
Battalion, Room 216, Reed McDonald Building, College
Station, Texas 77843.
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Represented nationally by National Educational Adver
tising Services, Inc., New York City, Chicago and Los
Angeles.
Editor Dillard S 11
Managing Editor Rhonda Watt'
Asst. Managing Editor .... Becky Sv®*
City Editor Rusty Ca»l
Sports Editor Richard Ob
News Editor Lynn 8la»
Focus Editor Rhonda Wat#
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
through 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.
Staff Writers Nancy Andei#
Uschi Michel-Howell, Debbie Nel®
Cathy Saathoff, Jana S®
Todd Wool
Photo Editor Lee Roy Leschpet
Photographers Lynn Blanco, SteveClarli.l
Cunni
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,!
supporting enterprise operated by stiiJt
as a university and community newspef
Editorial policy is determined bythetA