Democrats still looking
for missing party link
By ARNOLD SAWISLAK
United Press International
WASHINGTON — Ten years ago, the
Democratic Party embarked on an ex
periment: It turned over its presidential
nomination to people who don’t ordi
narily give a damn about politics.
Starting in 1972, Democrats effective
ly wrote their elected public officials and
party leaders out of the nomination pro
cess.
Two examples illustrate the change:
First, the party rules banned “automatic”
delegates — public office or party posi
tion no longer guaranteed delegate seats
for anyone. Second, the rules attempted
to restrict convention “deals” by en
couraging prospective delegates to com
mit to candidates and requiring pledged
delegates to vote for their candidate at
least on the first ballot.
The results were dramatic. After
scores of prominent Democrats en
dorsed Edmund Muskie in 1972 and sat
home while the Miami convention
nominated George McGovern, many
party leaders and elected officials shied
at early commitments. By remaining un
committed in 1976 and 1980, they
avoided embarrassment, but passed up
the chance to be delegates.
Some reformers were untroubled by
this, saying the reforms were intended to
give the control of the party to the grass
roots. Others saw it as passing control to
“casual Democrats” who might attend
caucuses, or vote in primaries and gener
al elections once every four years, but do
little else for the party.
During the Carter years, this problem
surfaced. The Democratic members of
Congress and party professionals had lit
tle to do with the nomination and election
of Jimmy Carter and, except for sharing
the Democratic label, had little stake in its
fate. But in 1980, the voters did not dif
ferentiate, rejecting the party’s senators
and House members along with its presi
dent.
Suddenly, the Democratic reformers
saw the point that the party regulars nev
er really had made: There is a crucial
connection between all Democrats who
represent the party in public office; they
must be linked in doing their jobs be
cause they are going to be linked by the
voters in the next election.
So, two weeks ago, reformers and reg
ulars agreed to change the rules again. In
1984, it is almost sure that about 800 of
the Democratic National Convention de
legates will be elected officials and party
leaders and that some 500 of them will be
allowed be uncommitted.
That may raise the risk of a “brokered
convention,” but it also should forge a
link between the party’s presidential can
didate and the people the candidate will
need help from if and when elected.
Earle
Slouch
^ I j ^*“1^
“I don’t think it’s anything to worry about, and I think it
will correct itself now that football will be off TV.”
Battalion/Page 2
January 26,1
w
BEAUTIFUL RON BABY
BUT COULD N A SPEED
ITUPAUTTLE?
Ben V ogler
Fone, Inc.,
- phone
§n child ho
Crime, mem
Reader’s Forum:
tional disi
handicaps,
other pi obi
I reduced or
ate steps
hood.”
Honor must be restored from within
I; Dorothy
specialist w
cultural Ex
Editor:
Some say that honor is a state of mind
and being, others say honor is great, let
all men be beholden to it. Some universi
ties have their century long traditions
based upon it. Texas has been the state of
the Union where most verbal contracts
were legal and binding until the late
1970s. We have taken pride in this fact.
Our word is good and contractual, most
of all it is a reflection of ourself.
However, the occurences of the last
few days, coupled with its’ similarity or
‘mirror image’ from a few years past with
Mr. Bellard and Mr. E. Jarvis Miller, have
led many Ag’s to see our “regents,” the
uppermost figure-heads at this once
great and honorable institution, lack
honor. It may not be they don’t have hon
or, it may be they just have a dual stan
dard. That being, “it’s great for others
and it is a necessity for some, but for
ourselves it may get in the way and be
come an obstruction for our great visions
for this University.”
This being the case, they fail to see the
log in their own eye while trying to pull
the micro-splinter out of all others. The
ultimate prognosis is complete blindness.
Should we as the remaining honorable
men and women allow these men to suc
ceed in this. Many say yes, but it is forced
or submissive yes. We all know this.situa
tion must end, with it must come the re
turn of honor.
The only problem with the returry of
honor is that honor is a difficult com
modity to restore. It must come from
within. Who can replace it? We must re
place it! It must come from each indi
vidual and only then will it reunite. This
however, includes our Board of Regents
(notjust Bum), the president, faculty and
finally the undergraduates.
Some one must put a halt to this slide.
One man does not dictate the policies of a
university. One man’s values and wishes
don’t or shouldn’t dictate another man’s
visions and ethics. Thus, all the blame
must not be pushed upon the enlight
ened Bum but must be shared by all. ft
Beseaich sh
. . fife a never-1
seems apparent his visions and ml children te
were pushed over the grassbladef abusers, sh
of others. W “We car
There can never be two rightsij lifetime of
situation nor has the end everju® 3 ^. “We’vi
the means. There may be several I pftfieprob
for achieving the same goal; 6ntM^ nten( ^ 11
honor and regard for others, the#?
with no honor and little or norega.; q exas jJ (h|
whom it may effect. Honor hass on child
been a single edged sword. Child p 0 rr
Let us then restore what weareBjearing Fr
rently in the process of losing. ThisB'he hearii
must never be place second or tin a r >i;. and a
cause it affects all other values $8||| est ‘fy w 'd
trust in us from others, respect, anWp l X n< ^ a ^ >1
mately pride in ourselves and inoul ■ a e . t
versity. for it is from this umversi» rom ^ \
leave to interact in society, influentiB ee w in c ]
guide our fellow men. ! legislation
'veil as loca
R.A.Bf in existing
R.D.i” Taylor <
Rici(p doctors, g<
Linda Zd $ ork f rs > i
Graduate Students, Animal show "the |
Letter: Desegregation isn’t
just meeting a set
Editor:
A response to the article titled, “De
segregation, Office seeks minorities to
comply with plan” in the January 19th
issue of The Battalion is what has com
pelled me to write this letter.
First of all the title of the article itself
seems to imply or have the earmarks that
the University is hunting and searching
for the sole reason to comply with the
plan. This I hope is not true. In all sincer
ity I would like to believe that an institu
tion such as Texas A&M University and
it’s Office of School Relations are recruit
ing minority students because education
here is offered to all, regardless of race,
color, sex, or national origin, and notjust
to meet a goal or quota.
That introduces you to my second
point. As Mr. Bond indicated, “Recruit
ing and Goals Setting may help eliminate
some of the past vestiges” of discrimina
tion. The way the article presents this
future scenario seems to imply that by
obtaining 525 more black students and
675 more Hispanic students we’ve got it
made. If you take those figures and add
them to our present enrollment of these
two minority groups (according to fall
semester figures) you will find that it
brings the totals to 908 for blacks and
1,853 for Hispanics. With an enrollment
average of 35,000 (again, using fall en
rollment figures) this computes to appro
ximately 2.6 percent for blacks and 5.3
percent for Hispanics in 1986.
Now, let’s take into consideration the
percentage of high school graduates
throughout the state of Texas for 1980-
81 within these two minority groups;
blacks represented 13.7 percent (infor
mation obtained from the Information
Analysis Division, Texas Education Asso
ciation, Austin, Texas) while Hispanics
constituted 19.7 percent.
The bottom line is this, at Texas A&M
University we still have a ways to go to be
triumphant in this challenging task and
notjust do enough to get by to meet mini
mum requirements as the article seemed
to indicate.
Gerald Wright
Affirmative Action Officer
Texas A&M University System
Wilson better off gone
Editor:
I hardly ever write letters like this, and
I’m not really sure they do any good, but
I think this needs to be said. I’ve been
following the antics of the newest episode
at Texas A&M with disgust and anger. I
too am an alumnus of A&M and I am
quite ashamed of how some of the people
involved are acting in this matter. Of
course you know that I am talking about
football at Texas A&M.
From the time that Tom Wilson took
over as coach he never had a chance.
Now, just as things are about to happen
again, a bad decision is made. Whatever
happens in 1982 to Texas A&M football
fortunes, Sherrill will of course, be the
hero or the goat. There doesn’t seem to
be an end to the vicious cycle.
I respect Tom Wilson greatly and
admire him for his conduct while coach
at Texas A&M. One of his major faults
was that he was to much of a gentleman
for most of the alumni. Wilson did a lot of
things well. I personally believe he is a
fine coach and person. Whatever the
1982 team does, most of that will be be
cause of what T om Wilson has done. This
current football team was on the verge of
being very good. I am afraid that you
folks have set yourselves back a bit. Look
at what Emory Bellard has done the last
two years and you will see that somebody
made a big mistake. Now, another mis
take has been made. If 36 wins in four
years under Bellard didn’t satisfy certain
people (including two 10-2 seasons back
to back), nothing less than 11-0 will. If I
were them, I wouldn’t count on it for the
following reasons: 1) certain people’s
gossip, rumors and backstabbing; 2)
pressure to win ’em all by certain people;
and 3) overall strengh of the SWC.
1 want to wish Mr. Wilson good luck in
the future and say that you will be better
off not being associated with this mess
anymore. I have really lost interest in
Texas A&M football the last several years
because of this stuff. It is a pitiful mess.
John C. Winfrey ’80
Capt., U.S. Army
Ada, Okla.
Cadet’s remarks disturbing
Editor:
I couldn’t believe some of the com
ments made by Paul Vaughan in Friday’s
Battalion.
He says that the Board of Regents and
the Corps of Cadets are not to be “messed
with” at Texas A&M. I disagree. If the
Board has made a grave error, as many
believe it has concerning Tom Wilson,
then criticism may be in order, as with
any other body or institution.
Further, as a non-reg, I resent the
comment that Texas A&M “is the
Corps,” and the implication that the non-
regs don’t belong here. Once Texas
A&M was the Corps, but no longer. The
Corps continues to play an essential role
in making our school the unique and
great place it is. The admission of non-
regs, however, has helped Texas A&M
grow into a major institution, nationally
known. This certainly has brought us
many good things, and another reason to
be proud.
I am not in the Corps, yet I share®
rich treasury of Aggie pride and!
tion which sets us apart. My Aggiei
proudly worn, and I’m glad
cadets are more thoughtful thanf
Bill Quit
V
J
The Battalion
USPS 045 360
Member of
Texas Press Association
Southwest Journalism Conference
Editor Angelique Copeland
Managing Editor JaneG. Brust
City Editor Denise Richter
Assistant City Editor Diana Sultenfuss
Sports Editor Frank L. Christlieb
Focus Editor Cathy Saathoff
Assistant Focus Editor Nancy Floeck
News Editors . Gary Barker,
Phyllis Henderson, Mary Jo Rummel,
Nancy Weatherley
Staff Writers .... John Bramblett, Gaye Denley,
Tim Foarde, Sandra Gary,
Colette Hutchings, Johna Jo Maurer,
Daniel Puckett, Bill Robinson, Denise S. Sechelski
Laura Williams, John Wagner
Cartoonist Scott McCullar
Graphic Artist Richard DeLeon Jr.
Photographers Sumanesh Agrawal,
David Fisher, Peter Rocha,
Colin Valentine
The Battalion also serves as a laboratory
for students in reporting, editing and photoftf:
ses within the Department of Comnninialiott l
Questions or comments concerninganyeditf^M
ter should be directed to the editor.
Letters Policy
Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 Jj
length, and are subject to being cut if they art®
The editorial staff reserves the right to edit W 1 !
style and length, but will make every effort to
the author’s intent. Each letter must also be 5^1
the address and phone number of the writer.
Columns and guest editorials are also welcor*
are not subject to the same length constraints J'*
Address all inquiries and correspondence to : “
The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas
versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phonel'ij
2611.
Editorial Policy
The Battalion is a non-profit, self-supporting news
paper operated as a community service to Texas A&M
University and Bryan-College Station. Opinions exr
pressed in The Battalion are those of the editor or the
author, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of
Texas A&M University administrators or faculty mem
bers, or of the Board of Regents.
The Battalion is published daily during
fall and spring semesters, except for holiday
nation periods. Mail subscriptions are $16.75 prtj
ter, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year ®
tising rates furnished on request.
Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed M$|
Building, Texas A&M University, College Statif
77843.
United Press International is entitled exdustj
the use for reproduction of all news dispatches^
to it. Rights of reproduction of all other matter 1 '
reserved.
Second class postage paid at College StaiM,
77843.
0
Also
writ;
thru
disst