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;