Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (Feb. 9, 1983)
1 '* (f t A -opinion Battalion/Page 2 February 9,1983 Slouch By Jim Earle “I think he’d be more likely to believe your hardship story about wanting to leave early for the weekend if you took them off during your visit with him.” U.S. 1984 budget — book of the year * w' by Art Buchwald The most important book published in Washington this year is titled, “The Budget of the United States Government - Fiscal Year 1984.” t- I haven’t had time to read it myself, * though I’ve browsed through it to see if '1 rny name was mentioned. But I asked a Friend who reviews Fiction and nonFiction 'For The Washington Post what he Tjthought of it. “It’s the best book I’ve read this year,” l4ie said. “Frankly, I think it’s going to be I Another ‘Winds of War.’” ' - “That good, huh?” > “I couldn’t put it down. I kept turning *ihe pages to see what government prog- -Yam would be cut next. It’s more fright- -jening than ‘Rosemary’s Baby.’” “You mean it’s a thriller?” ~-Z “More of a whodunnit. Or, specifical- ”iy, who’s doing it to whom. It’s about -^ynoney and power, the struggle for sur- >7vival, death and taxes and man’s fate in a -yvorld he never made.” I* “Any sex?” > “The military chapters are very sexy, 1 particularly the love scenes between the jUPresident of the United States and the I pew weapons that the Pentagon has Reduced him into buying.” I* “You mean tha President of the Un ited States is in bed with the military- industrial complex?” p “All through the book. Some of the •^scenes between them are so hot, that Tip * rO’Neill has threatened to ban the book in -IBoston.” * ~ Z “Does the President’s wife know he’s in Fove with the new weapons?” *' “Everybody knows. But the President says he has to do it in the name of national security.” “Is that the main plot?” “No, it’s just one of the subplots. The main plot is about a rich Uncle, who has lost so much of his money that he is down and out and in debt up to his ears.” “How did he fall on such bad times?” “He was caught up in a recession and couldn’t pay his bills. Finally he got so sick that the President’s doctors had to oper ate to save his life. They cut everything down to the bone, and froze everything they couldn’t cut.” “Does he live?” “In the book he does. The President’s doctors maintain they just removed the fat, and although the patient will have to suffer pain, it’s the only way he can get well. The White House doctors admit the medicine they’ve prescribed is a bitter pill to swallow, but the Uncle is now on the mend.” “Well tell me this. Does it have an up beat ending?” “All budget books written by a Presi dent have an upbeat ending. This one predicts in 1986 the Uncle will be fully recovered and regain his fortune again. And everyone will live happily ever after.” “Will it make a good movie?” “It’s been optioned by all three TV networks. They don’t know yet if they’ll make it into a soap opera, a docudrama or a situation comedy.” “If the book is as good as you say it is, I hope they don’t ruin it when it comes to the screen.” “The networks usually do.” The selling of Euromissiles by Maxwell Glen and Cody Shearer Western Europeans last week received the first dose of a last-ditch sales cam paign for two all-American products. But the United States effort on behalf of 572 cruise and Pershing II missiles runs the risk of polarizing a continent already divided over nuclear deploy ment. In some quarters, it may only give credence to arguments that underlie much of the opposition to NATO’s pend ing nuclear force modernization. President Reagan himself dispelled doubts that his recent “open letter” to Europe was anything but the start of an intense public relations war. Much to the chagrin of some administration officials, and probably Vice President Bush, who read the letter in West Berlin, Reagan admitted Tuesday that his call for a U.S.- Soviet summit on intermediate-range nuclear missiles was nothing new, “simp ly” a response to their (the Russians’) vast propaganda effort that would try to dis count our legitimate proposal for arms reduction” (also known as the “zero op tion”). In essence, the dramatics of Bush’s tour are merely examples of what’s in store for Western Europe. Reagan’s 1980 campaign media adviser, U.S. Ambassa dor to Ireland Peter Dailey, has been making almost weekly trips home to oversee a multi-agency effort to coordin ate and enhance U.S. communications on nuclear policy to Europe. According to one government official involved with the profect here, the U.S. hopes that a systematic but subtle barrage by spokesmen and media will neutralize Yuri Andropov’s efforts and encourage key European governments to give un abashed support for deployment. Bri tain’s Thatcher government seems to have taken the Reagan administration’s cue, already negotiating with the J. Wal ter Thompson agency of New York and London on a $1.5 million-plus advertis ing push for the U.K.’s nuclear strategy. Yet, as an outraged House of Com mons demonstrated in response to the government’s media plan, heavily politic al “communications” have their limits. In Britain, the ongoing protest at the U.S.’s Greenham Common Air force Base, where 96 cruise missiles are to be instal led, has captured the imagination of a generally pro-American public. To view those Britons who oppose “moderniza tion” as an overpublicized fringe ripe for media counterinsurgency is to underesti mate the depth of the opposition. (A Market Opinion and Research Interna tional poll found last month that while 72 percent of the British population rejects unilateral disarmament, 54 percent wants the cruise banned.) Dutch opposition to the four-dozen cruises planned for Holland is church- based, almost universal and therefore only more resolute. The Dutch parlia ment has voted twice against domestic deployment and is expected to do so again. Even U.S. officials consider Hol land a likely “No Sale” (a Dutch Labor Party spokesman called Bush’s visit to The Hague “childish and worthless,” and the nation’s media virtually ignored it). While the Church has also proved in fluential in West Germany, the Gen: I opposition to the medium-ranee mis has broader elements. For their p: U.S. tacticians hope to counterm& ! phobia and exploit a “deeper” allegij to the U.S.-German alliance, mud they did during the controversyovei; tlefield nuclear weapons duringthej I ’50s. 1 Since then, however, a youngergtii ation of Germans has comeofag)i freed of an earlier era’s shame, disa fled with the Americanization of its! ture and anxious to assert 1 determination. The Green Partyisj the most colorf ul manifestation of angst that rejects takingordersfnffl I siders, Russian or American, anditiaif ] plies to smokestacks as well as warlt This background is the biggesti lenge for the razzle-dazzle Reagana nistration. While the pitch forEuro|i acquiescence may be subtle and lota it will surely antagonize the verysenst ties that have fed Europe’s anti-n resistance. Perhaps worse, the Americanpuslj Pershing II and cruise seems rathetj lated. West German elections, viewedj possible turning point in that couhb missile future, are only a month; Peach organizations have years ofd ches and maturing behind them. And sentment of America’s NATO tion won’t dissolve overnight. European activists could havetoldl Reagan administration that for Mi perpowers a sincere commitmem Geneva’s arms talks would have beet] best public relations imaginable. bt V I The Hall vith a ihow t vas ofl oon D ng Tu THIS MUST BE A WOP PLACE-ALLTHE TRUCKERS STOP HERE House Democrats take charg The Battalion USPS 045 360 Member ot Texas Press Association Southwest Journalism Conference Editor Diana Sultenfuss Managing Editor Gary Barker Associate Editor Denise Richter City Editor Hope E. Paasch Assistant City Editor Beverly Hamilton Sports Editor John Wagner Entertainment Editor Colette Hutchings Assistant Entertainment Editor . . . . Diane Yount News Editors Daran Bishop, Jennifer Carr, Elaine Engstrom, Johna Jo Maurer, Jan Werner, Rebeca Zimmermann Staff Writers ........ Maureen Carmody, Frank Christlieb, Patrice Koranek, John Lopez, Robert McGlohon, Ann Ramsbottom, Kim Schmidt, Patti Schwierzke, Kelley Smith, Angel Stokes, Tracey Taylor, Joe Tindel Copyeditors Jan Swaner, Chris Thayer Cartoonist Scott McCullar ;; Graphic Artists Pam Starasinic Sergio Galvez Photographers ..... David Fisher, Jorge Casari, Ronald W. Emerson, Octavio Garcia, Rob Johnston, Irene Mees William Schulz 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 ex 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 also serves as a laboratory newspaper for students in reporting, editing and photography clas ses within the Department of Communications. Questions or comments concerning any editorial matter should be directed to the editor. Letters Policy Letters to the Editor should not exceed 300 words in length, and are subject to being cut if they are longer. The editorial staff reserves the right to edit letters for style and length, but will make every effort to maintain the author’s intent. Each letter must also be signed and show the address and phone number of the writer. Columns and guest editorials are also welcome, and are not subject to the same length constraints as letters. Address all inquiries and correspondence to: Editor, The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald, Texas A&M Uni versity, College Station, TX 77843, or phone (713) 845- 2611. The Battalion is published daily during Texas A&M’s fall and spring semesters, except for holiday and exami nation periods. Mail subscriptions are$16.75 persemes- ter, $33.25 per school year and $35 per full year. Adver tising rates furnished on request. Our address: The Battalion, 216 Reed McDonald Building, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 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. by Don Phillips United Press International WASHINGTON — After two years in the political sun, the House Republican party is trudging back into its old life as a true minority. In fact, Democrats, who firmly control the House this year, are using the meat- ax philosophy of politics to chop the Re publicans back into an even more impo tent minority than their 38.2 percent share of the House would indicate. The first two years of the Reagan administration were golden ones for Re publicans. Riding the crest of the Reagan wave, it didn’t seem to matter that they had only 192 of the 435 House members when the 97th Congress convened in 1981. With the help of a popular president, a Senate in GOP hands and enough con servative “Boll Weevil” Democrats to give them a majority on key issues, Republi cans began acting like a majority. Demo crats, after being swept aside on numer ous votes, stepped back into the tradi- : tional role of a minority, offering ideas that they knew would fail, for the single purpose of getting their views on the re cord. Republicans romped while Democrats cowered. “I had some fun for two years,” House Republican leader Robert Michel said. “There were some happy days because we were on top of the situation.” But with the dawning of the 98th Con gress this year, times have changed for House Republicans. - The downhill slide actually began in mid-1982 when they began losing key votes. High unemployment and a deteriorat ing economy sliced into Reagan’s popu larity and appeared to turn public atten tion away from budget-cutting and to ward fear for the economy and their own jobs. Reagan’s veto of a supplemental appropriations bill was overwhelmingly overridden by both the House and the Senate. Historians may record that Sept. 9, 1982, override as the turning point in GOP fortunes. But it was the 1982 elections that ham mered the GOP back into a minority sta tus, both by electing 26 new Democrats to the House and by placing new fears in the hearts of those Republicans who sur vived. The party count in the House now is 267 Democrats, 165 Republicans and three vacancies. When Congress convened this year, Democrats took three steps to be certain that Republicans do not regain even a hint of their former power. First, the Democrats cracked the whip on their own party’s discipline, ft moved the most active of the Weevils, Rep. Phil Gramm oH 1 from the House Budget CommilK 1 effect forcing him to switch partfe maining Boll Weevils said they^ message and will toe the line i closely. Next, Democrats adopted new^ rules that would tighten manytradi 1 * minority rights. The most impo 1 change involves restrictions on rid {: approprations bills. Traditionally,| unrelated amendments have s attached to yearly money bills asan 11 of accomplishing social goals raP from antiabortion bills to a cup funds for the Vietnam War. Ser sioi ber she Cui Ph( Nal awi eig Finally, Democrats packed key H committees with liberals of theirotf® ty and held down the ratio of Re(* cans on the key committees — W 1 Means, and Rules. The Energy and^ merce Committee, which willhanl environmental, health and other legislation this year, went one stepf 11 er by packing subcommittees within crats. The Democrats were sueef* House Republicans now are tru minority. “Up to this point, I haven’t ha to be happy about,” Michel said oft ere fieli Sin Na Ma the de;