p,f''"Mf s 9 -jy 'iy y
f editorial ptolm pgp ' J
'
uMm 0 ill -fr
Wt-' : 1)4-" . " .'ifc HWipaT i
, ...... mz&ssm MMMmss
The battle is over.
The white knight's armor is dented and
cracked. His troops stand scattered in
disbelief. Their hero has fallen. Or has he?
Though downtrodden and cast out, there may
yet survive a spark of fight in the warrior -and
in the Movement he symbolizes.
It has happened before. More than once a
defeated soldier has returned to the fray to
become a victorious leader. And at times
those who have been defeated time and time
again have been able to bounce back and
make substantial wins. A single defeat, a sole
setback need not keep the virtuous fighter
down.
But what of those standing behind him?
Will they be strong enough to rebound from
the debacle? Will their ideals survive a
thrashing? In their hands lie all possibilities
for future success and progress.
If those who have so faithfully followed
the Movement thus far lose faith all their
progress will be for naught. Those who have
championed the causes of justice, equality
and peace cannot give up the ghost unless
they intend their society to regress to the
unjust barbarism of earlier days. It is their
responsibility, to keep opening society's eyes
and promoting faith in the Phoenix rising
from the ashes. Without them, 1984 may be
12 vears earl v.
The battle mav have ended, but the war i
far from over. And with any luck, next time
things will be different.
Jim Gray
Anderson-'irreverent left wing muckraker'
Jack Anderson, selfannointed Guardian of a Free
Press and Number One Muckraker and Yellow
Journalist of the 20th Century, blessed UNL last week
with his golden words of wisdom. Sometimes grave
and solemn, at other times raving and gesticulating
with actions reminiscent of an old-time evangelist,
Anderson's words were forever cloaked in left-wing
bias and prejudice, his tone one of cynicism and
irreverence. Indeed, the man's verbal barrages I find
every bit as preposterous as his daily newspaper
columns.
vihstad dm
fflffiOC
Anderson's most astounding statement had to be
his parroting attribution of the "most
compassionate" and "most decent man in the
Senate" distinction to 1972 Democratic presidential
nominee George McGovern. While deploring the
rhetorical excesses of Spiro Agnew (and I believe the
vice president to be guilty as charged), McGovern
back in May called for "a conciliatory approach" to
the campaign, saying he was striving "not to whip up
emotions but to appeal to humanity and reason
(Washington Post, May 17, 1972)." But alas, with this
statement as with so many of his others, lonesome
George has in practice, if not in words, chucked this
one out the window of expediency, too.
"I know I hated his guts ... I hated him so much I
lost my tense of balance," said the "conciliatory"
McGovern when referring to his 1960 senatorial
opponent, Sen. Karl Mundt (in Robert Anson's
McGovern: A Biography, p. 93).
In 1964, the "decent" Democrat denounced
Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater
"as the most unstable, radical and extremist ever to
run for the presidency in either political party
(Congressional Record, Sept. 8, 1964, p. 21690)."
In July of this year, soon after FBI director J.
Edgar Hoover died, our "compassionate" McGovern
commented that "Hoover had lived beyond the
normal years ... I could feel nothing but relief that
he was no longer a public servant (Life magazine, July
7, 1972)."
Anderson made the observation that this campaign
had been filled with "more dirty tricks" and "sordid
tactics" than any other election he could remember.
He then went on to condemn-and rightly so-the
Watergate eavesdropping and other assorted shady
and clandestine administration campaign activities.
But he had not a word to say about the equally
horrendous if less spectacular doings by the other
side, I would like to ask Anderson if his definition of
fair and above-board politics includes George
McGovern's likening of the President to Hitler and
the Nazis and his charge that the Nixon
administration is alternately "the most ruthless,"
"most corrupt," "most immoral" and "most evil"
government in American history.
Are these accusations the mark of a "reasonable"
and "decent" man, or are they more comparable to
the late Joseph R. McCarthy's allegations that
President Eisenhower was a Communist dupe?
Our special guest then tried to convince us that the
Nixon administration seeks "to control the flow of
information to the people" and is "applying
pressures" and exercising "indirect censorship" in
order to "manage the news." These emotional scare
tactics were accompanied by not a single shread of
concrete evidence.
Indeed, Anderson knows full well that in the
United States, unlike any other country, the press
enjoys unbounded and unparalled freedom to print
anything it wants at any time it wants. Even the
ultraliberal Theodore Sorensen, a one-time special
counsel to President Kenndy, remarked that "the
news is being 'managed' in the only place it can be
managed: the media editorial offices
(Decision-making in the White House, p. 56)."
Pressed about his role in the Tom Eagleton affair,
Anderson claimed it was "blown way out of
proportion," "played-up" and "misrepresented" by
the press. In a cheap attempt to rationalize his
shoddy expose which accused Eagleton of alcoholism
and suicidal tendencies, he said "Eagleton has
benefited . . . he's the most popular politician in the
United States." And while the junior senator from
Missouri now is somewhat of a folk hero down home,
chances are that his presidential hopes have been
dashed forever.
Yes, Anderson proved an interesting diversion on
an other-wise uneventful afternoon. But it's
unfortunate that nothing of substance was revealed
from his sermon of soggy rhetoric.
H.
r
daily nebraskan
Wednesday, november 8, 1972
,,,,,.J..,t.,j ft4.'f-AV'' .j.fV5
page 4