Page 4
university Daily Kansan, October 31, 1980
Opinion
1
No treats today
It's Halloween—the scariest day of the year. Yet the world has much more to fear than mere wights, ghosts and goblins.
+8
+0
The world is in despair. The Iran-Iraq conflict is brewing disaster in the Middle East. Afghan rebels continue an all-out battle against Soviet troops in Afghanistan. And last but not least, 52 American hostages have spent almost one year of captivity in Iran.
At the University of Kansas, inadequate salaries are forcing faculty members to leave the University in large numbers. A Title IX investigation threatens some of KU's federal funds. The University also is searching for a new chancellor.
In the United States, voters face a critical presidential election. Inflation has zoomed out of control. Crime is reaching new heights. Americans are unsure of themselves.
A lot of uncertainty lies ahead for the University, the nation and the rest of the world. It's more frightening than the stroke of midnight.
Unfortunately, the colorful costumes can't mask forever our real problems. In fact, it's a trick—rather than a treat—to think otherwise.
Anderson is a mere puppet, right-hand man for Reagan
With the presidential election only a few days away, with key questions concerning independent presidential candidate John Anderson's bid for the White House have yet to be answered.
It's about time to explore the real reasons behind Anderson's quest for the presidency.
Until the early part of this year, Anderson was a supporter of the Republican platform. It was 2015 that he became leader leading Republican candidate Ronald Reagan that Anderson decided to go independent.
Suddenly, Anderson shunned the Republican Party platform. In fact, he completely abandoned it. Yet if Anderson's ideas came from Carter's or Reagan's, more social programs to help the
FRED
MARKHAM
The only major difference is that Anderson does not favor cutting taxes.
elderly, stronger defense, lower unemployment, etc.
And then there's the way Anderson has run. In the past two weeks, Anderson's popularity has dropped from 15 to 8 percent, forcing him to sit out the latest League of Women Votes debate. Despite these negative signs, Anderson has continued his campaign—expenses and all.
Why does he continue his quest when he knows he has absolutely no chance of winning? For what reason? Why is it so difficult?
him to help capture enough votes from Carter to nut Reagan in the Oval Office.
The political arena is as dishonest as anything could be, and it is not that Anderson is a champion of the right.
Although Anderson is the best qualified of the three candidates, party ties are strong, and pressure sometimes can force a person to do things he normally would not do.
Could this be the scheme the Republican Party has been planning for years?
During the first series of primaries, Anderson strongly rruled out any possibility of betraying his party and its platform in favor of an independent candidate, even if Reagan won the Republican nomination.
Despite his words and strong feelings on not running on an independent ticket, Anderson suddenly decided he could not support the views of Reagan and the Republican platform. Once again, all all happened when Carter was far ahead of all the candidates.
To put it bluntly, Americans are being subjected to a political illusion. Unfortunately, Anderson is a Reagan right-hand man, and without him, Reagan would be doomed to defeat. It boils down to this: a vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan.
The sad part is that Anderson, if he were in the right position, could do more for this nation than terror or Reagan put together to terrorize it. The fact that an insult to the voters' intelligence and a disgrace to this nation.
The worst part about it is that there is little or nothing anyone can do about it. The best part is that one of the major party candidates will have to lose.
The University Daily KANSAN
(1829) 587-644. Published at the University of Kansas daily August through May and Monday and Thursday during June and July except at Sunday, Saturday, and Monday from noon to midnight. Student subscriptions are $2 a year in Donegal County and $3 for six months $4 a year outside the county. Student subscriptions are $2 a semester, paid through the student activity fee. Postmaster: Seed change of address to the University Daily Kansas, Finkl Hall, The University of Kansas, Kansas City, Missouri.
Editor Carol Beer Wolf
Managing Editor Jason McKinnon
Editorial Editor Jamie Edler
Campus Editor Joody Woodburn
Associate Campus Editor Andrew Campers Editor
Assistant Campus Editors Jeff Sperr
Specialist Editor Don Munday, Mark Spencer, Cindy Wilkinson
Specialist Editor Jenny Wirtz
Specialist Sport Editor Patti Arnold
Etainment Editor Maken Eldersman
Wire Editors Ellen Iwamo, Leslie Leakey, Bob Schaff
Wire Editors Lola Winkelmann, Tom Tennethy
Copy Cheffa Ellen Iwamo, Gail Keegars, Tammy Threey
Staff Photographer Chad Todd
Staff Photographer Ben Bigel, Ken Comma, Scout Holder, Frank Towrs
Staff Photographer Susan Hollowell, Ted Lacktick, Bill Mennessa, Brett Conley, Scott Faust, Fred Kewra
Editorial Cartoonist Staff Artist Jesse Noll
Staff Writer John Jinks, Michael Wunch, Bret B洛曼
Chuck Howland, Dan Torchia,张 Shawn McY
Retail Sales Manager Kevin Koster
National Sales Manager Nancy Cannon
Campus Sales Manager Nicole Light
Guardian Manager Tracy Coon
Advertising Makeup Manager Jane Wendercott
Staff Artist Brian Walker
Staff Photographer Brian Walkin
Teachers Messenger Barb Speh
General Manager and News Advisor Rick Musser
Kansas Advisor Chuck Chowlin
The Promise of Golden Years
Letters to the Editor
No Dole, please
Well, two out of three isn't bad. After showing a surprising amount of sense by endorsing John Anderson and Dan Watkins, it is unfortunate that the anonymous editorialist reverted to a much less intelligent stand with the endorsement of Bob Dole.
To the editor:
in the endorsement of Watkins, the Kansas applauds him as one of "a new breed of congressmen, willing to take up a standard of activism . . ." Quite rightly, the Watkins endorsement pointed out that the power Larry Winn has accrued during his years in Congress is useless if it is not used to aid his constituents or the nation as a whole.
A vote for Watkins
To the editor:
Biological sciences secretary
If we assume that not using congressional clout for the good of the people is grounds for replacing Winn, then it would seem to follow that abusing senatorial powers for personal gain at the expense of one's constitution is the reason for removal. So why are you endorsing Dole?
It is apparent to anyone who has paid any attention to the national political scene for the past half-dozen years that Dole looks upon his senatorial seat merely as a footstool to get a leg-up on higher offices. His ridiculously drawn-out, almost Stassen-like presidential campaign was only the most recent example of this.
Where was Dole for the first four months of this year, when major legislation was being debated and voted on in Congress? In New Hampshire, Iowa and Massachusetts trying to beat out "none of the above" and failing miserably. The general public remembers Dole, when they do at all, as the designated Republican mudslinger of the 1976 campaign, whose tactics then made Jimmy Carter look like Snow White.
And so it seems to me that a major reason not to vote for Dole is the fact that, if Ronald Reagan actually should win, how long do you think it would take Dole to start campaigning for an administration position? Based on Dole's record to date, this is a perfectly reasonable question to ask. Consider, for instance, the specter of the country forced to endure Dole as secrecy, secret agriculture although Dole is undergoing his work with the job he did on Bill Roy, I think Dole would be perfect to head the CIA. The man knows his dirty tricks). If Carter or Anderson wins, the same process would start again when 1984 rolled around.
While I do not have an exceptional amount of information about John Simpson, as far as I can determine he is running because he believes Kansas is in need of real representation in the Senate. And he is right; Nancy Landon Kassebaum has queried that Kansas should be appointed to the Senate and seems determined to become another Winn in terms of influence.
As for Dole, the time has come to let him know that his abandonment of the people of Kansas, while pursuing his dreams of political conquest, has not gone unnoticed.
As the Kansan almost said, "The choice is clear. A combination of Dole's political experience, know-how and influence uses solely the power of a speech to the extent of the people of Kansas, makes the choice for senator obvious." Vote for John Simpson. James J. Murray
Rule number one for defeating an incumbent congressman: Before you can
convince voters to vote for the challenger, you are good reasons not to vote for the incumbent.
The reason is simple, and the Dan Watkins-Larry Winn race is a good example. The voters of this district have checked Winn's votes in most seats for 14 years in seven straight elections.
No matter how good Watkins is, voters first must be convinced that there's a reason not to vote for Winn again, before they can seriously consider Watkins as their congressman.
A second rule of media politics is that it almost always takes a while to get a message across to a sizable portion of the electorate. While newspaper columnists and careful critics of Wim's record, many more people are only beginning to get the message.
In another recent Kansas congressional campaign, charges of a serious election law violation were made against one of the candidates. Despite almost daily front-page newspaper coverage, a survey two weeks later found that about two-thirds of the voters hadn't even heard of the charge, and many who thought they were confused understand them and thought they were against the wrong candidate, not the one who was actually accused.
In this election, at least, Watkins is making his criticisms responsibly. Most candidates shoot from the hip, as Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan are doing more frequently lately, but Watkins has carefully researched Wim's record.
He did more than just tell us Winn had visited 53 countries, 19 in the last two years, which placed him in the top 5 percent of congressmen in foreign travel. He also gave Winn a report of how he reported on where Winn went, how much it cost and what Winn missed while traveling.
Certainly, an incumbent's record is fair game in an election, and Winn should have to defend he. He hasn't had to defend it since when he was president, and there are no challenges. This is another reason why Watkins must spend so much time telling voters the bad points of Winn's record. It has been 10 years since voters were exposed to any organized criticism of Winn. Meanwhile, as public funds to present the positive parts of his record to each constituent.
Many knowledgeable observers have said for years that Winn is unbeatable. Watkins couldn't prove them wrong just by telling voters what a great guy he himself is.
I, too, hope Watkins is able to present effectively the positive aspects of his own record, because, if elected, he will be an excellent congressman.
Steve Leben
Lawrence law student
Reagan the man
To the editor:
After studying President Carter's record from 1976 until now, I find it hard to believe that anyone could vote for the man and sleep easy at night. I support Ronald Reagan because of his fine job as governor of California for eight years.
After telling the American public his many promises, Carter proceeded to go from Dr. Jeykli to Mr. Hyde during a short span of three and a half years.
"There's no doubt in my mind that before I go out of office the budget will be balanced."
(Los Angeles Times, June 16, 1976) With a federal spending increase of 57 percent, federal taxes increasing 69 percent and the national debt soaring to 42 percent, I don't hold much hope for another four years of Carter.
"When I become president, we'll have a strong national defense, a defense second to none. . . militarily we are as strong as any nation on earth." (San Francisco debate, Oct. 6, 1976) Delaying the MX missile by at least three years, cutting naval ship-building programs in half, canceling the B-1 bomber and cutting the 1976 projected defense budget by $38 billion seem to be rather odd ways to build up a defense.
On energy, Carter has failed miserably. Although he pledged in 1976 to deregulate natural gas prices, marketed domestic production of natural gas has increased by barely 2 percent in Carter's first three years, while imports have skyrocketed by 30 percent.
"I pledge that if I'm elected, we will never use unemployment and recession as a tool to fight inflation." (Economic Position Paper No. 133) According to the July 1980 labor statistics, the overall unemployment rate rose from 5.7 percent to 7.8 percent; the unemployment rate dropped from 19 percent and black unemployment rose from 12 percent to 15.2 percent. More than two million workers joined the ranks of the jobless.
Since Carter took office, taxes from all sources have skyrocketed, rising from $357.7 billion in 1977 to a proposed level of $628 billion for 1981—an increase of 75.6 percent. If re-elected, Carter proposes a tax level of $724.8 billion for 1982, an increase of 103 percent—more the do away with the time when he recorded to the New York Times, Sept. 20, 1976, "I would never increase taxes for the working people of our country and the lower and middle income groups." Which should we believe, what Carter said or what he has done?
Finally, look at inflation. The rate was a little below 5 percent in 1978. Appalled by this, he promised to strive for a 4 percent rate of inflation by the end of his term. Well, the end is near. Yet inflation is at a new high of 12 percent.
Can we take four more years of Carter? Reagan has a plan that worked for California when it was $149 million in the hole and spending $1 million a day more than it was taking in. After he left office eight years later, he had already taken advantage of any previous governor—California was a prosperous state. He had turned a $149 million deficit into a $550 million surplus.
This approach to government is desperately needed in Washington so we as a country can cure the economic problems and restore respect to our foreign policy worldwide. Look at the records: Reagan has one, Carter does not. Scott Hall
Park Ridge, Ill., freshman
Letters Policy
The University Daily Kansan welcomes letters to the editor. Letters should be typewritten, double-spaced and not exceed 500 words. They should include the writer's name, address and phone number of the writer, if filled with the University, the letter should include the writer's class and home town or faculty or staff position.
1