he Battalion
O
PINION
Page 5 • Monday, July 19, 1999
Where, oh where, has my Liddy Dole gone?
Marginalized candidate can still beat George W. Bush if she capitalizes on her talents
Oth anor
The
ite-runcs
'arly
^>te byai[«L ij za beth Dole is
lr ? S P«B; now the Republi-
arourB| can ’ S equivalent
a party favor ancM
aen dismissed as
Beverly
MIRELES
>at Chin;)
United s
A, ° r ^ S t0 George
le news ®ush’s relentless
» I B-raising and con-
ant media hype. Dole,
ite Z fJtering. Her poll
tall to « bers have dro PP ed from !5 to 7 per-
snapper 4
Site has consistently beaten A1 Gore in
^■rtisan polls, but in the GOP straw
nn H . ill she cannot seem to get past the
eaniroller that is Bush,
iction cB er P ursuit dle nomination is now
tl^, ' ttndent on the hope that Bush will
d theJii* * 6 3 misste P-
ich faBhat most Republicans think of her as
photo?UbviGu 8 No. 2 in a Bush-Dole ticket
rocket i s severel Y diminished the role she
skelep U ts t0 play -
ry an Boor Liddy Dole.
e typeB as slie B otten pushed aside or what?
et perctifldy bread gets more attention than this
lidding Oman does.
issembhMike many professional women, Dole
hey co been confronted with the secret max-
enougf |i of gender politics - a qualified woman
triguel Hi win the nomination, but only if there
rts like wot a man available to fill the post.
follow Bhe is quickly learning that being the
e prodost accepted female candidate does not
rocket jean being the victorious candidate,
ly stirftreeding has trained her to grin and
lesignac: ear this hard truth, Southern belle-style,
nseen . t-however, if she continues to act in
cecraft uch a reserved way, she’ll be grinning
r esselbi y bearing it all the way back to the Wa-
implex ergate Apartments.
rts said rher only chance now is to get out there
iesest ind show a thing or two to prove gender
i°t taBuld not be the only calling card of her
lews undidacy.
tstitutesawpdere are three main factors in the race
itions »*the nomination - money, temperament
and experience. Dole needs to reaffirm
her positions on these three things in or
der to weaken Bush’s stranglehold on the
lead.
• Money: It is the necessary evil of
every candidate.
Dole has raised about $3.6 million, not
a bad figure. However, Bush has at least
$37 million bankrolled.
In order to use her obvious monetary
disadvantage against Bush, she could
campaign against “buying” the presiden
cy.
Americans, though thoroughly jaded
when it comes to money in politics,
would resent the thought that Bush, who
has over 10 times what the other Republi
can candidates have, deserves the presi
dency.
And the public should resent this.
“Moldy bread gets more
attention than this
woman does.”
Bush may be the poster boy for big
money, but he certainly isn’t the image of
strong leadership.
Dole can remind them of this.
• Temperament: Dole needs to drop
the “preparedness is second to godliness”
act.
Spontaneity may not be her strongest
point, but by allowing the robotic image
she has gained to take hold, she’s harm
ing her candidacy.
Being thoughtful does not have to get
in the way of Dole’s image.
People want prepared presidents but
not timid ones.
Unfortunately for Dole, the need for
intense preparation can be misconstrued
as the inability to make important deci
sions.
If she can shake the automaton image,
then she definitely is on her way to
showcasing her experience.
• Experience: This is Dole’s true ace
— she is more qualified than Bush and
Sen. John McCain.
After serving as president to the Red
Cross and holding two cabinet posts, her
record tops both McCain and Bush in
public service.
As Red Cross president, she had to
make informed decisions at a fairly quick
pace. Bush’s governorship can hardly
boast the same experience. Texas gover
nors are typically weak.
She desperately needs to show she is
the most qualified for the nomination.
Those veiled barbs of hers will not do
the trick.
They will only remind voters of the
“Little Miss Perfect” moniker that New
York Times columnist Maureen Dowd has
already saddled Dole with.
Liddy Dole has the chance to win the
Republican nomination for president, if
she has the good sense to use her advan
tages.
If Dole sticks to the issues and rein
forces the notion that the other Republi
cans running do not have a strong issue
to stand on, she has a good chance to
make a jump in the polls.
For the Republicans who haven’t
caught Bush fever, she might be exactly
what the ticket calls for.
For those who already have bought
into Bush lock, stock and barrel, Dole is
patient.
She will be waiting and ready for
when he stumbles.
Beverly Mireles is a junior
microbiology major.
Jeff Smith/The Battalion
Wealthy nations must consider More fees should be optional
eftwelfare of less affluent countries
■EAST I
■RE)-
r!
l/l
LANSING, Mich. (U-
() Wlll RE ) — According to a recent
w Biort by the United Nations De-
n a carUfopment Program, the increas-
ist, said ■globalization of world
arresteiffinomies is widening the eco-
i in the ilnic disparity between the
ad r vorld’s most developed and
/ y er ’ e ast developed nations.
■gesan^ the re p ort warns the increas-
'g inequality of wealth between
ations is rapidly bringing about
"dangerous polarization” of
Th and poor nations and ques-
ip n l global economic practices
■ ■at seem to value profits more
an people.
^ ; The essential argument seems
^ be that with the growing glob-
ization of national economies,
T nation that is not sufficiently
‘Red developmentally, eco-
amically or politically to
’ntpete in the newly impor-
nt global market will be ei-
et excluded from or exploit-
I by that market.
! So, any developing country
at can contribute to global
^ .sf ’oduction or is politically
^ i!f a td e nnd economically
. omising enough to merit
j|;f| e in investment has a good
And if it is true that un
checked globalization will
plunge the world’s underdevel
oped nations further into pover
ty and plight, then is the United
States or any other globally suc
cessful nation obligated to assist
the unsuccessful nations or limit
their own success to limit the
damage it inflicts?
America’s economic prosperi
ty is widely heralded, and a
large part of our overall success
is undoubtedly due to our eco
nomic and cultural dominance
of the world — our success, in
effect, in the global market.
Our affluence as a nation,
then, is closely related to the af
fluence of other less capable or
less fortunate nations.
T la nce to participate in the
$ °ba] market.
|p Any- that cannot or are not,
hich happens to be the ma-
bty of developing nations,
J ce two choices — either be
Jduded from the global mar-
and wallow in eternal pover-
' a nd underdevelopment or be
jj£ j; Tloited by developed nations
"s n3 tural resources and sweat-
jl jiljpop labor.
T Not surprisingly, the report
illUnited States as one
pf^ 16 primary benefactors of,
t dominant forces in, the
_ P •' r °wing global economy.
This means America, as long
f : SWe accept the truth of the re-
||jK s assertions, is one of the
bief beneficiaries of the plight
l Un derdeveloped and unstable
\ T ations.
5 That ugly conclusion brings
l i several interesting questions to
1 1 T'
«;|® rs t’ in a global economy,
f °® s the affluence of one nation
j| |p come at the expense of an-
It is not clear, though,
whether our success directly
brings about the failure of oth
ers. This is less a case of direct
exploitation and more a case of
the perils of capitalist econom
ics.
For all its efficiency in the dis
tribution of goods and services,
and its enormous potential to
generate wealth and prosperity,
capitalism neither is, nor never
has been, the most equitable or
humane of economic theories.
This new problem that has
arisen with the advent of global
ism is really the already encoun
tered question of where we
should draw the line between
survival of the fittest and a hu
manitarian concern for those
less fortunate.
Some sort of safety net is un
doubtedly, needed when dealing
with free-market economics.
We learned that lesson rela
tively early in our history as a
nation.
We have been attempting ever
since to strike a balance between
unchecked competition and con
cern for the welfare of the eco
nomically unsuccessful or un
derprivileged.
Among those attempts were
our antitrust laws at the begin
ning of the century.
In breaking up the concentra
tion of market power, we suc
ceeded in spreading the wealth
around a bit and improving the
overall American standard of
life.
But it seems as if we’ve now
moved from establishing mo
nopolies in the domestic
sphere to attempting to estab
lish them internationally.
That seems to be the most
compelling point made by the
U.N. report — the United
States and other globally suc
cessful nations might be
squeezing the more underde
veloped nations out of the
market.
The problem with that is
easy to see when we’re talk
ing about domestic monopo
lies — our own people are
harmed. It becomes less
clear, though, when the de
bate moves to the subject of
the economic welfare of other
people.
Especially when any sort of
comparable solution would like
ly harm American prosperity.
But it is likely that the Ameri
can railroad barons and steel ty
coons of the early part of the
century were also adamantly op
posed to any sort of antitrust ac
tion and anyone outside their
perspective could recognize how
self-centered and unreasonable
their position was.
Now that America is the
baron of the global market, will
we be able to recognize our self-
centeredness and do the right
thing?
Michael Kirkland is a colum
nist for The State News at
Michigan State University.
Marc
GRETHER
wit
tration loom
ing, I have
been flipping
through the
fall registra
tion schedule,
and noticed it
lists 17 sepa-
rate fees — Seventeen.
Some of these fees are neces
sary. But others are just plain
stupid.
Three fees in particular stand
out: the on-campus cable fee,
the health center fee and the Rec
Center fee.
Though many students may
not be aware of it, all on-campus
students pay for cable television
access in their rooms. Yes, even
those without televisions. Even
those who live in dorms, er, resi
dence halls without air condi
tioners.
It is odd that this world-class
university forces students to pay
for completely non-academic
services, which they may not
even be able use ,but won’t pay
for such basic services as air
conditioning. Granted, students
in non-air dorms choose to live
there. But not all students would
choose to have cable.
This fee is one of the many
that _does not show up on a fee
statement. Rather, it is now just
part of the rent for your room.
Unidentified men
question student
Last night while I was walking
to Hurricane Harry’s from my car,
my girlfriend and I were ap
proached by three plain clothed
men in an unmarked car.
These men jumped out of the
car and proceeded to ask to see
my identification. I promptly re
fused to show them my ID until I
had identification of who these
men were. The man in charge told
me the ID on his belt was good
enough for me and did not show
me his identification.
The ID he spoke of was a*
badge of some sort, but they did
not show me any type of photo ID.
The men would not let me go
The fee arrived a few years
back when a group of students
decided their cable bills were too
high and wanted help from
everybody else in paying for
them. Somehow, they convinced
enough other people to go along
with their coercive plan, and
now, all on-campus students are
stuck with their legacy.
The health center and Rec
Center fees are two more fees
forced on students. However,
neither of these two facilities are
used by everyone. Even if every
one did want to pay for them,
we should not be forced to pay
for them?
I have been very lucky. In my
four years on this campus, I
have never once had to use the
health center’s facilities. Howev
er, if the health center fee were
optional, I still would have paid
it because I realize what a risk I
would be taking without access
to good health services.
But why am I forced to pay?
And what about other stu
dents who have full-time jobs
with insurance benefits or be
long to a family insurance plan.
Why are they forced to pay
twice? No one should be forced
to pay for something they do not
want or need.
The Student Rec Center is one
of the newest, most well-used
buildings on campus. It is full of
wonderful exercise equipment,
excellent swimming and diving
MAIL CALL
until I showed them my drivers li
cense, and they asked me, “Do
you know the penalty for drinking
and driving?”
I told them I did but asked how
this charge referred to me, be
cause I had not consumed any al
cohol the entire evening. Apparent
ly, these men had seen me take a
drink out of my water bottle that I
keep in my car, and they thought I
was consuming alcohol.
My girlfriend offered to get the
bottle from my car to show the so-
called officers. But she was told
very rudely to stay out of the con
versation because the officers
were not speaking to her.
I want to make college kids
aware of their rights. A badge is
not a form of identification, and
plain clothed officers must show
you a photo ID if they wish to
facilities and an amazing rock
wall.
But why should a disabled
person be forced to pay $50 a se
mester for it? They may not be
able to benefit from it.
For that matter, why should a
lazy person be forced to pay a
Rec Center fee? They will defi
nitely not benefit from a Rec
Center they choose not to use.
The career center fee is an ex
ample of a good fee. For starters,
the fee is optional. The career
center stays in business because
people want it, people need it
and those people are willing to
pay for it.
Even some mandatory fees
are good fees. The computer ac
cess and library fees help pro
vide services all Aggies need.
Most other good fees (lab,
physical activity and distance
education) are only assessed to
students taking specific courses.
These fees are needed because
some classes cost more than
others. It makes sense that
those taking the classes pay for
them.
Attendance at a university is
not required.
Nonetheless, stupid, coercive,
collectivist fees should not be
forced on students once they get
here.
Marc Grether is a mathematics
graduate student.
question you. Badges can be pur
chased at K-mart for $4 plus tax. I
want the students of Texas A&M
to know their rights and to be
aware of these men.
Scott McCrosky
Class of ’98
The Battalion encourages letters to the ed
itor. Letters must be 300 words or less and in
clude the author’s name, class and phone
number.
The opinion editor reserves the right to edit
letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters
may be submitted in person at 013 Reed Mc
Donald with a valid student ID. Letters may also
be mailed to:
The Battalion - Mail Call
013 Reed McDonald
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX
77843-1111
Campus Mail: 1111
Fax: (409) 845-2647
E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com