J xican 01*
either candidate claims outright win
Mark Nek
; Aggies (J
’oropetitioii
pretty w e
should do
esameclul,
! looking fo
(AMU-TV, Channel 15, will rebroad-
'ast the debate in its entirety both to-
j ay and Saturday at 1 p.m.
IONS
'AST!
United Press International
CLEVELAND — Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan, locked
in a contest for the presidency so close the pollsters cannot
idict a winner, clashed on both style and substance in the one
jd only presidential campaign debate of 1980.
illions of Americans watched on television Tuesday night as
t Democratic president and his Republican challenger at-
pted to break the deadlock public opinion surveys say the
cdon has become just one week before the Nov. 4 day of
cision.
the candidates, questioned by a panel of reporters and
itors, covered a wide range of subjects from inflation to
men’s rights, disagreeing on most but colliding most sharply
nuclear arms limitation and energy.
they ended with Carter appealing for support as a president
10 was in the “mainstream” of both his party and his White
rase predecessors, and Reagan asking the voters to decide on
basis of their answer to the question: Are you better off now
in you were four years ago?
Carter left Cleveland’s Convention Music Hall after the 90-
nute confrontation saying he expected to win the election, and
ling the debate only “very useful.” But Hamilton Jordan, his
puty campaign chairman, claimed jubilantly, “We won.”
Reagan did not make an outright claim to victory either,
mg, “I feel very good about it.” But returns from an ABC
twork telephone straw vote gave the former California gover-
r an edge of about 2-to-l.
Carter was a grim attacker during much of the meeting, while
agan retained a relaxed and usually genial style.
Odd man out in the show was independent John Anderson,
io took part by having his comments included in a taped
broadcast shown by the Cable News Network from Washington.
The panel, of questioners got few incisive answers as both men
sought to turn their responses to reflect the themes of their
campaigns. Carter came back repeatedly to his claim Reagan’s
opposition to the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty was warning
of a saber rattler, and Reagan lost no chance to remind the
audience both inflation and unemployment had soared with
Carter in the White House.
“When a man who hopes to be president says take this treaty,
discard it — that is a very dangerous and disturbing thing,”
Carter said of Reagan’s opposition to the SALT II agreement.
“I’m not talking of scrapping the treaty,” Reagan replied.
Explaining the United States had been repeatedly “out-
negotiated” by the Soviet Union, he said, “I’m talking about
taking the treaty and going back and talking with the Russians.”
The candidates painted a vastly different picture of the energy
situation. Carter said he expected fuel costs to rise more; Reagan
said he wasn’t so sure about that.
Carter said his administration had put in place a program that
would develop new energy sources for the nation and make
millions of new jobs while Reagan wanted “to put all his eggs in
one basket and give that basket to the oil companies.”
Reagan called that a “mis-statement” of his views and said the
country was “energy rich” and could develop its resources if only
the government would remove obstacles such as limitations on
oil drilling on the outer continental shelf and in the public lands.
Carter called Reagan’s proposals for 30 percent tax reductions
over three years “highly inflationary” and “ridiculous,” saying
the Republican would have to cut federal spending $130 billion
to finance his tax plan and balance the budget.
Reagan asked why it was inflationary to let the people keep
their money rather than letting the government spend it, and
contended he could cut government spending enough to in
crease defense spending and cut taxes and still balance the
budget by 1983.
The candidates did considerable bragging. Carter brought up
his role in the Egyptian-Israeli peace and the increase of nine
million jobs while he was in the White House. Reagan spoke
highly of his record as two-term governor of California and said
his credentials as a working man were demonstrated by the fact
he had been the president of his union (the Screen Actors Guild)
for six terms.
And each also made statements that had to be taken on faith.
Reagan said he had talked to unemployed black teen-agers who
told him that they couldn’t get jobs because of the federal
mininum wage. Carter said his teen-aged daughter Amy had told
him that nuclear weapons control was the most important prob
lem in the world.
Accusations, laughter, hissing
part of Aggie debate reaction
By DEBBIE NELSON
Battalion Staff
What effect did Tuesday night’s Reagan-Carter debate
have on Aggies?
One group of Aggies in the Commons television room
laughed their way through it.
Pre-debate comments ran like this: “Reagan’s gonna win,
but he’s gonna die in office.”
“I wanna see if Reagan’s gonna come out of this with mud
on his face. He probably will.”
At introduction of the candidates, Carter was hissed loud
ly. Hisses and whoops got equal time for Reagan.
Every time Reagan rebutted a Carter allegation or
criticized Democratic policy, the crowd ate it up. “Sweat
Jimmy, sweat.”
Carter speeches were followed by comments like, “He’s
beating around the bush,” or “He didn’t answer the ques
tion.”
One Commons resident said, “Reminds me of the ’76
debate. He didn’t say anything then, either.”
Not that Reagan didn’t become the butt of several jokes
himself. When he commented, “I’ve seen four wars in my
lifetime,” a male voice from the crowd said, “Including the
Civil.”
Another comment on Reagan: “He’s got on too much
makeup.”
Accusations against Carter for mud-slinging were common.
But most Reagan criticisms of Carter were applauded.
“Ouch,” someone said after Carter referred to a comment
Reagan made “when he was a younger man.”
“This is funny.” Laughter was common, at nearly anything.
After Barbara Walters (who got a fair amount of hissing
herself) asked a question about responses to terrorism, crowd
concensus was: “Neither one of them answered the ques
tion.”
Howls of laughter filled the television room when Carter
said he had discussed nuclear weaponry with his daughter
Amy.
“I wonder what Amy said,” someone said.
“Maybe Amy could be President.”
One male student in the corner had no opinion about
Carter or Reagan. He was asleep.
.■'11 fix it
:cident,
d they II
r to any
Vol. 74 No. 43
14 Pages
Battalion
Serving the Texas A&M University community
Wednesday, October 29, 1980 USPS 045 360
College Station, Texas Phone 845-2611
The Weather
Yesterday
High 64
Low 39
Rain 0.00 inches
Today
High 58
Low 34
Humidity muggy
Chance of rain slight
ter on a
implete
riEN
NTIES
rrantd
ts and
yelling alcohol in MSC:
rospect raises doubts
aul
ylinder)
ne late
eluded.
By NANCY ANDERSEN
Battalion Staff
Should beer be sold in the MSC Basement?
The student senate is considering this issue through the
sement Competitiveness Resolution. If passed, the bill re-
ests that permission be granted for the MSC Basement Com-
ttee to apply for a permit to sell beer on weekends.
The Texas A&M University System Board of Regents would
ve to grant permission to apply for a license to sell alcohol
ice it would be a System policy change, Bissey said.
’The purpose of the bill is not to create another Dixie Chicken
H campus,” said Jeff Bissey, student services committee cam-
s policies coordinator. Instead, the bill seeks to make the
sement more competitive with similar off-campus establish-
nts by supplementing the entertainment.
Mike Huebner, Basement Committee director of public rela-
, said, “The consensus of the committee officers is that it
3uld be a good idea to apply, so we could have the option of
rving beer.
“Whether or not it (the permit to sell beer) is used would be
i to the discretion of the committee and the performers,” he
id.
Some performers, like the Shake Russell Band, enjoy per
ming in the Basement because they don’t have to compete
th the clanking of beer bottles, Huebner said.
Col. Thomas Parsons, director of security and traffic, said he
ies not want alcohol sold on campus.
“I have two basic oppositions from two standpoints — as a
Jiliceman and as a former student,” he said. “As a policeman I
see where it would cause difficulties at some time.
“There’s no need for it on campus. There are sufficient places
-campus if you want a cocktail or whatever.”
[As a former student, Parsons said, “It’s not appropriate to turn
e MSC into a speakeasy. It’s still a memorial, to me.”
1 As far as potential problems, Bissey called other universities
for some general information about selling alcohol on campus,
and those schools with pubs said there weren’t any security
problems.
f These schools — the University of Texas, the University of
Houston, Rice University and North Texas State University —
dd generally, their pubs had good atmosphere and were finan-
ally successful, Bissey said.
Texas A&M System policy allows alcohol only in leased rooms
or rented areas, such as the suites in Kyle Field, or in on-campus
housing.
Due to the touchy nature of this bill, Bissey said, the student
services committee took a non-partisan attitude when the bill
was researched.
Some of the pros they found, Bissey said, were:
— It would make Texas A&M appear more progressive.
— It would modify tradition.
— It would not change any Basement entertainment policies
since beer would be limited to certain performances.
— Since the Basement capacity is about 200, the size would
not induce heavy drinking and rowdiness.
— The Basement has a separate entrance and Corps of Cadet
members are not required to wear uniforms there, making it
seem less a part of the MSC.
— It would allow a trial to see if a student pub would work.
Some of the cons, Bissey said, were:
— It would be incompatible with the memorial nature of the
MSC.
— It could create security problems, like fighting and disor
derly conduct.
— It would bring in outside control through the Alcohol
Beverage Commission.
— It could bring in more outside entertainment which could
eliminate local talent.
— It could make the Basement a social center instead of an
entertainment center.
— It might hurt Texas A&M’s conservative reputation.
Eric Langford, Student Government vice president for stu
dent services, said the bill has been held in committee to give
senators a chance to look at it and get in touch with their
constituents’ feelings.
“We held this to get student response before we take action,”
he said.
If the bill does pass the senate and the regents, the Basement
Committee will have to apply to the ABC for a license to sell
beer. This process involves paying a $50-per-year fee, passing
some basic requirements, filing forms with the county clerk and
a public hearing.
A county judge holds the hearing, and anyone has the right to
protest the issuing of a license. If approved, the applicant must
pay the fees to the county tax assessor and then the Bryan ABC
district office would send off to Austin for the license.
Staff photo by Jeff Kerber
Precision
Kurt Buck, a graduate student from Bryan, puts the Craft Shop. Open to all students, the craft shop offers
final touches on a bread board he made in the MSC many activities for those with a creative drive.
§•
55/80R13
Also
plus
I tire.
, two strong
•d body anil
Nobody’as president
safe election choice?
1 des#
TOO!
honoo
mterCaN,
Carte
i Expt^ 5
VENUS
322-H^
0 M-F:
JOHNSON
United Press International
AUSTIN, — Wavy Gravy, wearing a
clown suit, worked a crowd of500 into
a passionate fervor for Nobody for Pre
sident.
Gravy is Nobody’s chief aide, other
wise known as nobody’s fool. He is the
Hugh Romney of the Hog Farm com
mune in the San Francisco Bay area
and was adept at charming an audience
at the University of Texas.
Nobody’s perfect, said Gravy. His
record is undisputable and spotless.
Perfect, as a matter of act.
Gravy asked the crowd: “Who was
president before George Washington?”
“Nobody!” came the response.
“Who honored the treaties with the
Indians?”
"Nobody!”
“Who will free the hostages?”
“Nobody!”
“Who do you want to run your life?”
The address was so stirring — it was
obvious Nobody cares — that one man
stepped forward and said: “I’ve never
voted for anybody, but this year I’m
going to vote for nobody.”
Curtis Spangler, Nobody’s campaign
manager, went on to explain Nobody
knows how to dispose of nuclear waste,
Nobody has brought peace, Nobody
fed the hungry and the destitute and
Nobody keeps all his campaign pro-
The campaign is financed by the sale
of bumper stickers, T-shirts and cam
paign buttons. It is the second cam
paign for Nobody.
Nobody actually won in 1976, said
Spangler, although Jimmy Carter was
permitted to take office. Spangler says
only 40 percent of eligible Americans
voted, leaving 60 percent voting for
Nobody.
Iran doesn’t want hostages ‘forever’
United Press International
Iran’s legislators, back from a one-day pause for a
religious holiday, went behind closed doors today to
discuss the American hostages who have been held four
days short of a year.
Three more hours of debate apparently brought the
Iranian Majlis, or parliament, no closer to a decision
than three earlier secret sessions did. Members took a
half-hour break, then resumed — at 3 a.m., EST.
Tehran Radio said Tuesday a U.S. confession of
“crimes” in support of the late shah of Iran is part of the
non-negotiable demands for the release of the American
hostages.
But the radio said Iran does not intend to hold the 52
captives “forever” and denied a deal has been struck to
free the hostages in a possible swap for spare military
parts.
The hostages, now in their 361st day of captivity, were
seized last Nov. 4.
Iran’s parliament debated the fate of the 52 American
hostages for the fourth time today, but adjourned the
secret sessions with no announced decision on whether
to free the captives held just four days short of a year.
A spokesman for the parliament’s secretariat told UPI
in London by telephone an “open session” of the Majlis,
or parliament, would be held Thursday.
The hostage issue was expected to be on the agenda
then, the spokesman said.
But no announcement was made and no statement
issued after today’s secret debate, which lasted more
than five hours but covered other issues besides Iran’s
“renditions” for releasing the hostages, now in their
361st day ot captivity.
The 200-odd deputies of Iran’s parliament debated the
hostage issue Sunday and in two sessions Monday, then
adjourned for a day for a Moslem religious festival.
Tehran Radio said Tuesday a U.S. confession of
“crimes” in support of the late shah of Iran is parm of the
non-negotiable demands for the release of the American
hostages.
But the radio said Iran does not intend to hold the 52
captives “forever,” and denied a deal has been struck to
free the hostages in a possible swap for spare military
parts.
The Majlis, which is charged with deciding the fate of
the captives, has had before it since Sunday the report of
a seven-man commission studying the issue.
Its protracted debate has produced no reported deci
sion.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini met the legislators on
the occasion of the Shiite holiday Eid-Eghadir, but did
not mention the hostages, restricting himself to a reli
gious ceremony of the holiday, which commemorates
the nomination by Prophet Mohammad of his successor.
Khomeini also did not mention the hostages during a
speech to the nation later, French reports said. But the
Iranian strongman attacked the United States and the
Soviet Union for their “bestial appetite.”
The only mention of the hostages to emerge from
Tehran Tuesday was from Tehran Radio, which said the
nation “never intended to keep the hostages in Iran
forever.”
But it said the Americans will be released only after
the “United States admits its crimes and faults” and
meets Iran’s other four conditions laid down by Kho-
“These conditions are non-negotiable,” the radio re
port monitored in London said.
When reports about an admission of so-called past
misdeeds surfaced earlier this fall, Washington said it
was prepared to talk about it but not to make any
apology.
A West German television report from Tehran Tues
day said Iran was demanding a fifth condition prior to a
two-stage release of the Americans — three hours on
American television to explain its position. But Iran’s
parliamentary commission denied the report almost at
once and called it utter fiction. The U.S. State Depart
ment termed it “100 per cent rumor.”
Tehran Radio also denied that Iranian Prime Minister
Mohammed Ali Rajai had made any deal that would
release the Americans in exchange for spare parts to help
Iran carry on the war against Iraq.
The French newspaper Le Monde, reporting on the
intricacies of the hostage politics, said a majority of
parliament and Iran’s leaders favored the hostages’ re
lease, but a hardline group of 87 of the 200-odd par
liamentary deputies was still fighting efforts to set them
free.
The United States said Monday a piecemeal release of
the 52 Americans would be “unacceptable” and warned
Iran of “grave consequences” if any of the captives were
tried as spies.
State Department spokesman John Trattner would not
be pinned down on any movement toward the hostages’
release, saying only, “We note the various reports from
Tehran and we are in the position of waiting to see what
happens.”