»g
E
C
f t
ev
JOl
he
ta
o\
1
am
n
iol
an
iac
»rc
J
>ui
ve
ve
h<
•ai
Viewpoint
u
The Battalion
Tuesday
Texas A&M University
September 30, 1980
esp
ng tam
isease
.tt
he
•oi
»g
JO
lai
hi
ve
Tic
(
C
(
M
a !
P'
ei
P
oi
Slouch
By Jim Earle
‘How did we come out against Open Date U. ?
Anderson candidacy
viable only on paper
By DAVID S. BRODER
PHILADELPHIA — What happened to
John Anderson here last week was a vivid de
monstration of the limits of media politics. I
showed the revelance of a political party —
even in a non-party age.
Anderson came here fresh from his strong
showing in the Baltimore panel interview with
Ronald Reagan. His manager, David Garth,
ordered “crowd events” for the post-debate
day, seeking television and newspaper cover
age that would suggest that the long-shot inde
pendent candidacy had acquired a fresh burst of
energy and support.
By holding a noon event in an outdoor plaza
in the heart of Chicago’s loop, always thronged
with pedestrians, the Illinois congresssman was
able to draw a crowd of 2,000 that looked heal
thy to reporters and TV interviewers.
But the evening here was a dispiriting win
dup to what should have been a dynamic day for
Anderson. His backers booked the 3,500-seat
Civic Center and filled only about 500 of the
chairs — a failure that was highly visible on
television. The Philadelphia Inquirer head
lined, “Empty Hall Swallows Anderson
Momentum. ”
Embarrassed Anderson aides blamed the
bust on competition from the Eagles’ Monday
night football game and the Phillies’ appearance
on television. But the basic problem was the
lack of the kind of “automatic” support a politic
al party can provide for its candidate.
The volunteer Anderson organization tried.
It really tried. It bought $1,500 worth of radio
spots to advertise the event — not an inconsid
erable sum for an organization whose budget
depends on the daily collection of voluntary
contributions. Volunteers distributed several
thousand handbills promoting the event at
downtown locations, and student volunteers at
the area campuses were pumped up to compete
with each other for the number of classmates
they could turn out. Key members of the volun
teer network in Philadelphia and its suburban
counties were asked to start a “telephone chain”
which theoretically could reach thousands of
Anderson fans in their homes.
In the end, the only places that turned out
were the campuses — and only a few of them.
When master of ceremonies John Buckley (a
Middlesex Country, Mass., sheriff, imported to
a city where no local notable is supporting
Anderson) called out the names of area cam
puses, there were cheers from the contingents
from prestigious Penn and Temple and Bryn
Mawr, but not from the more blue-collar St.
Joseph’s and Villanova.
The school cheers were reminiscent of an
Warped
Reagan budget cuts failed
once before in California
Jronie,
arm,
ealth <
Dr. C
lave be
By DIANE CURTIS
United Press International
WASHINGTON — Republican presidential
candidate Ronald Reagan is patterning his plan
to cut federal spending by $195 billion over five
years on a money-saving scheme that bombed
when he tried it in California.
Earlier this month in Chicago, Reagan pre
sented an ambitious program to “balance the
budget, reduce tax rates and restore our de
fenses.”
The road to a balanced budget is to be
achieved partly with a 2 percent cut in spending
in 1981, increasing the slashes to 10 percent by
1985 for a total reduction in projected federal
spending of $195 billion over five years.
The way Reagan plans to accomplish this
shearing, he said, is “through a comprehensive
assault on waste and inefficiency.”
“The old phrase is to cut, squeeze and trim,”
explained one of Reagan’s top economic advis
ers during a not-for-attribution briefing.
No specific programs are targeted for extinc
tion, the adviser added. Instead, the bloodlet
ting will simply eliminate $195 billion in “fraud,
waste and extravagance.”
He did not pinpoint the source of that “fraud,
waste and extravagance. ”
“But the “cut, squeeze and trim” approach
failed when Reagan, as California’s newly
elected governor, tried it in 1967.
“We are going to squeeze and cut and trim
until we reduce the cost of government,” he
said in his January inaugural address.
“It won’t be easy nor will it be pleasant and it
will involve every department of government,
starting with the governor’s office . Any major
business can tighten its belt by 10 percent and
still maintain the quality and quantity of its
operation. So too can government.”
What Reagan optimistically proposed was a
10 percent across-the-board cut in all state de
partments and agencies. But as lawmakers and
constituents rallied against the arbitrary
slashes, especially in mental health and higher
education, the governor backed off from his
money-saving scheme and his first budget was
10 percent higher than the previous year’s.
During recent stumping in a Polish neigh
borhood of Milwaukee, Reagan stressed his re
cord as governor and said his economic proposal
would work “because it did in California.
The
it h
ESS ca
Bi
Still 1
He cited a freeze on governmentlimphai
which he promises will be his firstai flight; t
dent — and formation of task forces tiKitro
and look at government agenciesandt>rl)»c 0
and tell us w here the extravagant*iB 5 ac
waste is and how we can cut it down t u
He said his policies restoredCalfcK^
dit rating, eliminated the “deficit
allowed the government to return $6t;*| s
taxpayers and cut the average annuala^ bet
in spending in half. iProe
He did not mention that he also impol"* P ri
of the largest tax increases in California*r on
, , .Tnuei
But while Reagan does promise a k s
budget, reduced taxes and an increase pHow
ary spending, the postnomination spomer
has adopted a more restrained toneiililpoi
nomic promises.
During campaigning for the prim I* 5
Reagan sold the Kemp-Roth three-yearife
cent tax cut bill as an economy stimuk k
would pay for itself in added governnuf
venues.
Now, he warns that turning the ft]
around is not easy and “will take I
Anderson birthday party rally in Boxboro,
Mass., last winter, when he was still seeking the
Republican nomination. But the repetition of
the device now, seven months later, seemed to
measure the failure of the Anderson campaign
to broaden its base or build organizational
depth.
That is the main reason that strategists in
both the Ronald Reagan and Jimmy Carter cam
paigns here now believe that serious attrition in
the Anderson vote is bound to occur. His sup
port grew after the debate and is relatively high
here now, sustained so far by Anderson’s skill in
acquiring free media exposure. But the parity
he has enjoyed with the major party nominees
in television news coverage is increasingly
eroded as Carter and Reagan step up their
advertising campaigns.
Without the kind of organizational activity
that would tend to reinforce the marginally
committed Anderson voters in their inclination
to support the Independent, Anderson is likely
to be whittled back to his hard-core supporters,
his rivals believe.
The irony is that in a state like Pennsylvania,
Anderson may suit the voters’ natural inclina
tions better than either of his rivals. Pennsylva
nia likes to vote for progressive Republicans
like Gov. Dick Thornburgh and Lt. Gov. Wil
liam W. Scranton III.
But at a dinner here two nights after the
Anderson fiasco, Thornburgh and Scranton
were on hand to cheer — not Anderson — but
George Bush, Reagan’s runningmate. The ties
of party loyalty pulled the kind of crowd that
Anderson might well envy, and if the $80,000
raised or the Pennsylvania GOP was small by
the affluent standards of today’s Republicans, it
would have looked like a small fortune to
Anderson.
The same force of party loyalty is operating to
help Jimmy Carter whittle the Anderson vote
from the other flank. A political loner by incli
nation, Carter has reached for help to the
Democratic mayors of this state — including
Philadelphia’s Bill Green, who helped Ted
Kennedy beat Carter last April in 68 of the 69
awards.
Carter’s campaign is also tying in closely to
one of the more obscure aspirants on the ballot,
Al Benedict, the candidate for re-election as
state auditor. Benedict is not a man of renown,
but he has a built-in organization of some 800
patronage employees — an army more disci
plined and reliable than the Anderson student
volunteers.
On television, Anderson looks like a match
for his rivals. But in the streets, as the Philadel
phia fiasco showed, it is no contest.
nist
It s your turn
Turn down the speakers at Kyle Field
Editor:
I would like to express my congratulations to
the Athletic Department for providing the
means for those who could not afford a radio to
hear the A&M-Penn State game anyway via the
sound system in Kyle Field. Although I live
over three-quarters of a mile from the stadium
as the crow flies, while working in my yard
Saturday I found I could hear the roar of the
crowd only occasionally in the distance, but that
I could hear every word over the PA system just
as I heard every note of the taped music played
during the three hour “testing” of the same
system the previous Sunday. Students who
attended the game tell me that the PA system
was loud enough to cut through any noise
caused by the over-60,000 fans with plenty of
volume to spare. I don’t know why it was consi
dered necessary to blast out Saturday’s pro
ceedings, but now, thanks to the efforts of A&M
and the Alamo, those of us living north of the
campus can experience the delights of excessive
noise pollution on both Tuesdays and Satur
days. When a neighbor turns his stereo up too
loud an ask him to turn it down. Well neigh
bors, here is my request, please turn it down.
I hope any responses to this letter will be
more constructive and original than “Highway
6 runs both ways.”
Ron Pflaum
A&M one of greatest
Editor:
A dream has come true. My love for Texas
A&M started the day my brother arrived on
campus in 1969. Because he was in the Corps of
Cadets, I quickly learned about the many tradi
tions and ideas which surround Texas A&M. At
that young age, I decided that I would one day
be a part of that institution. In 1969 it was one of
the greatest universities around.
However, upon my arrival I was unsure of
what to expect. Had Texas A&M changed since
my brother’s graduation in 1974? Was# 1
university where the atmosphere was
undying loyalty and old traditions?"
Corps of Cadets still the backbone ofafi
student body? My answer toallofthesi
tions is yes.
Texas A&M has changed; and, itp
tinue to change. It is a rapidly growing
tion that attracts some of the very bests#
found anywhere. Certainly, no univ? 1
perfect. However, my dream is that'
A&M will always be the great universiP
past reflects. As long as the incomings!#
believe in and uphold the ideas whi®
made this institution great, manyotheif
will have their dreams fulfilled.
John J. Col#
By Scott McCullar
The Battalion
U S P S 045 360
MEMBER
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Congress
Editor Dillard Stone
Managing Editor Rhonda Watters
Asst. Managing Editor Scott Haring
City Editor Becky Swanson
Sports Editor. Richard Oliver
Asst. Sports Editor Ritchie Priddy
Focus Editor Scot K. Meyer
News Editors Lynn Blanco,
Gwen Ham, Todd Woodard
Staff Writers Jennifer Afflerbach, Kurt Allen,
Nancy Andersen, Marcy Boyce, Mike Burrichter,
Pat Davidson, Jon Heidtke, Uschi Michel-Howell,
Debbie Nelson, Liz Newlin, Cathy Saathoff,
Rick Stolle
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Photo Editor Pat O’Malley
Questions or comments concerning any t
should be directed to the editor.
LETTERS POLICY
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 word! ::
and are subject to being cut if they are longer. T1iee0
reserves the right to edit letters for style and It
make every effort to maintain the author's intent,
in list also be signed, show the address and phone nar
writer.
Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, iX
subject to the same length constraints as letters. i‘ v
inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The
Reed McDonald, Texas A&M University, College^
77843.
EDITORIAL POLICY
The Battalion is published daily during Texas
spring semesters, except for holiday and examinatW
Mail subscriptions are $16.75 per semester,
year and $35 per full year. Advertising rates furnish
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting newspaper op
erated as a community service to Texas A&M University and
Bryan-College Station. Opinions expressed in The Battalion are
those of the editor or the author, and do not necessarily repre
sent the opinions of Texas A&M University administrators or
faculty members, or of the Board of Regents.
quest.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDoniP"
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843
United Press International is entitled exclusive# ! '
for reproduction of all news dispatches credited to it
reproduction of all other matter herein reserved
Second class postage paid at College Station, ft
s
\