Image provided by: University of Nebraska-Lincoln Libraries, Lincoln, NE
About The daily Nebraskan. ([Lincoln, Neb.) 1901-current | View Entire Issue (Nov. 5, 1976)
frid?, ncvcrr.bcr 5, 1073 dsy ncbnzksn I : : " - 1 1 Z? ... ooinion Election of Carter o White House w17 change course of U.S. politics By UKentWolgamott The New Deal has returned to the Democratic Party. In the words of George McGovern, the party has "come home." That same coalition which has given us other Democratic presidents a coalition made up of Southern ers, blacks, urban dwellers, Catholics and Jews-also put Jimmy Carter into office. Carter's ability to unify a factionalized party first became evident this summer in New York as he and his staff conducted the Democratic Convention with bso- grownups JiXLtly no interruptions or squabbles an uncommon event - 1" ia.4v..,.i.:m JJL1 4UiJ UUUAn Carter's choice of Walter Mondale was part of the strategy which won MA the mandate. Mondsk was s lib eral of the eld school, a contrast to outsider Carter, (lampeigning in traditional Democratic areas Mondale proved a great asset to the Carter cause. The Carter strategy was complete with his choice of issass and the W2y he chose to run his campaign. Deciding to emphasize "people" issues rather than such things as stopping inflation arid by choosing to run a campaign not attacking Ford, Carter appealed to those Vtlio are directly affected by oar economic difficulties the same groups Franklin Roosevelt attracted in 1932. Father Nstaie decided Carter appealed to the coalition but it was left to Mother Nature to decide who would be elected President. With good weather a high turnout could be expected and Carter would benefit; poor weather, holding down voter turnout, would have benefited Ford. The good weather la?t Tuesday sealed Ford's doom as record numbers of voters went to the polls. As tlie returns came in it became apparent that Carter had held a solid South due mostly to the black vote and that he would win the necessary populus urban states. "When New York fell it was only a matter of timer The West came in solidly for the President -a result of Carter writing off a majority of those states rather than decisive regionalism for Ford. Carter's win should not be interpreted as a rejection of Ford. Ford received nearly 50 per cent of the vote and the electoral vote count was the closest in recent history. Ford was not rejected rather, the voters opted for a change, a change in domestic economic policy, a change in the handling of foreign affairs and a change to the country of the last ghosts of Watergate. It is not as though Ford has done something disasterously wrong; but that he has done nothing outstandingly right. Ford and Carter are decent human beings both capable of serv ing as President. The choice on Tuesday reflected the type of leadership this country wants. Quiet leadership Ford himself characterized his leadership as ""quiet" a building process. Carter projected a more dynamic, active leadership. Carter will be .a dynamic president. lie viil move lo implement the programs he lias promised us. "Within the first few weeks of his term he will initiate programs to change the tax code and to ease unemployment. He will pardon the draft resist ers. look for Carter to be a leader who proposed much social legislation to Congress in the fashion of Lyndon Johnson. Lock for him to be his own Secretary of State and to be a very visible President. This election has turned the course of American poli tics for the next four years and probably further into the future. Te again have a President and a Congress of the same party-a combination capable of widespread reform and innovation. I cannot predict the future but 1 can safely say that the election of 1976 has provided the country with a change. I only hope that the change vil be positive. With our in put, it will be. orion. wsBjj- . :. .n L nun-s D 08ERiunuiT 5DWE OF VDU HAVE ASOD JUST Wg MAMA IS, AMD Wy WE MUST O.PHt iDEMTTTV fi. PEE", A rtitkW XT VWBULP EE IMPOSSIBLE R to BE SUCH AM CtrrSTtMffiM IF I4K KkP ijcw ciiEcicins worth A a6HUND. 1KMOW ISECuy kf a lot to Kg Dy Arthur iloppe Every American can hold his or her head a bit higher this week. South Korea, it is now reported, is buying a million dollars worth of our Congressmen annually For years, we've been buying foreign politicians Italian, Japanese, Arabic, even a D-Jtchsan of royal blood. But this international commerce was a one-way street. While foreigners were all too eager to buy our planes, tanks and guns, they wouldn't touch our politicians with a ten-foot pole. Naturally, this made us uneasy. . Oh, we'd pass it off by saying our pclilkiaris were too expensive for these underdeveloped countries. Cut deep Innocent . bystander down we were worried. ILd we at last produced a product no one wanted? The of it all! So the news that our politicians were worth scasethbg, at least to South Korea, was jubniaath receive ia Vah irton. : The cily czz was by a frw cynks who dainrd thst, seeing we have ghrcn the South Koreans mere than 55 fcZlc-n in economic aid to date, thry are buir cur rxUii,,T.n with cur izczzy. Corresnan Er'ry Cood., for cse, put a qTzidc stop to thst kind cf creative xaUt. The point is tlyry cs'Jll hsve boirit any kind of pcllcka tlxy wsztci, tut tiry chc c-rs," he till. I tliik till proves c-r pcllticirts can cccrpcte ca an tibial footir ia tlis titer cz'izmi curkct place IboJii ccsccJci that SI dHuca worth cf pclllicins rzi cdy a drop in the bucket. Dt he sail hs kokrd ca rea - "After all, he explained, "the reason South Korea wishes to buy our Congressmen is so that our Congress men will vote more economic aid to South Korea which will enable South Korea to buy more Congressmen who will then vote more economic aid to .South Korea and so on. I think we're in on the start of something big." Soodle rclusctantly admitted that the South Koreans had made no direct offer as yet la buy him. "Bat they did buy ilrs. Boodle," he said. Our friend, the lobbyist, Donton Park, banded her an envelope containing S 1 0,000 and told her to buy some shoes for the kids. idi2 didn't tdl nae about it because she didnt want to make me jealous. I only found out last week when I asked her where she got the Rolls Royce she's been driving the past foty years. "in all due modesty, though, I feel he thought he was buying me. You know how it is: we all look ai:yg to them." Doodle, with considerable fcresght, plans to tack a "Buy American kbel to next year's forego aid bill requiring all nations to follow South Korea's example. Tije only threat to the burgeoning trade is a proposal that bought politicians be shipped immediately to the ceuzirics purchasing them. "There are some purchases you rnske that you would never dream of bringing home , protests! ens foreign diplomat, "such as most cheap hookers asd all American Politicians." (Cepyrtsfet Cfcmucit Publishing Co. 137 lis CTy f.VjrLn dcess kUrrs to CzttZzx I cf?i.n. Chacss cf caterid pLl-j .liters msstfcs - a poi nse if rerrjaitsi. GSt c-l-kns saxll be typed, f-;' q E.nr.r r. Tbry slail be axccsrJ by csif ess, dss fi2 mor ex ooccpatka. Jln:iiJ r.rJ to fcsa is sjsct to tt trz zzJ cz- l tz'J zzl csnsct be irtsJ to lis 9 letters Winning fosters disinterest I read Pete Wegmans Oct. 29 column with .great in terest. I do not disagree with the contention that at times the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) uses" its power over member schools in an unfair manner. I feel the NCAA also can be faulted for its role in the fight with the AAU for control of amateur athletics in this country. Again, it is schools and athletes who are punished for lather hard to define reasons. We seem to have in common a concern for people being able lo corn pete. - However, 1 must disagree with you bout "the effect the NCAA restrictions are having on college football. You feel that they are destroying -interest in the sport by ruining the hold traditional powers have on winning and that they are making the game mediocre in qSaliry. This position is ill-considered at best and stupid and selfish at worst. Granted, interest is high at schools like Nebraska, Ohio State, Notre Dame and Southern California. Granted, it is law L places. uch as f - . XCU, Rice, and Duke. 1 feel that reflects current records mare than any need for - traditional powers lose, fans lose interest Therefore, game at the University of Nebraska in the fifties or early sixtLs? 1 did. Where was the interest then? Of those four schools you named, 1 know at least three of them liad teams good enough to play in major bowls during those Nebraska ""down" years. 1 bet they Tiad interest then. 1 would guess that the rise in interest at Nebraska has helped offset the loss at the other schools. Winning creates interest, losing doesn't. It doesn't disappear when some schools have bad years. If we take your argument to its logical conclusion we wind up with a paradox. Teams that are bad can't do any thing Tight. The TCUs, Miami's, and Kansas States of college football must win lo draw fans and create interest. . However, when they win mime of the Nebraskas, Penn States, and VSCs start to lose. According to you, when traditional powers lose, fans lose interest. There fore, the down schools have to lose to have a chance of increas ing interest because if they don't then nobody will be in terested in coming to college football gamesanymore. 1 donlt think it, works that way and 1 don't think you do cither if you would stop to think about it. If it did we wouldn't need to bother with K-State every year. We could play Wesleyan for a much smaller guarantee. Now, try this idea. Interest in college football will decline if the same teams win all the lime. If Nebraska goes 10-1 every ;year and Iowa State, Kansas,and K-State canY even stay on the field with them not only will fans at those schools not go to games but Nebraska fans will stop coming (Maybe not all Nebraska fans. They seem to have an unquenchable thirst for runaway stomp ing of other teams) because the games will be meaningless. It's not fun to win a foot race against a quadriplegic. Similarly, beating the Wildcats every year 50-3 wears thin after awhile. In the past few years Nebraska has had a three or four game season. Oklahoma, plus two games from the group of Oklahoma State, Missouri, Kansas or Colorado de pending whether or not one of the non-conference foes is any good. That's why people are disatisfied with season records of 8-3 and 8-2-1 . Wlien you start out 7-0 winning only one more game is a bad year. This season is more exciting. Now for the second point. Don't confuse competition and mediocrity. And don't blame scholarship and coach ing staff restrictions for the latter if it indeed exists. Any staff of eht which can't find 22 good starters out of 95 scholarship athletes is iricompeteat. They donl need more bodes to win. The old limit of 45 per year and 120 total didn't provide more than one or two more good players who could play. It merely allowed 4&e powerful schools to stash them away. EventuaTy tlsy quit or were cut. Now they play at other schools. Nebraska football is at worst 90 per cent cf what it sised to be. If that is medi ocre, then it was mediocre to start with. Other teams have been able to raise their quality of play. If your answer is that the NCAA should have stated this was the reason for the restrictions rather than cutting costs, I agree with you. I don't think the people who vot ed on the matter were fooled for a minute. Also, it wasn't just the Hofstras and Long Beach Ststes who favored the iestrictions. In general, the Eig 10,Pac-S, asd ACC were in favor. The Eig 8,S".VC, and SEC were against them. It wasn't just the lits guys trying to drag down the big ones. I feel that you midit be just a little too involved ia this to be impartial Who wculin't be thsasthey see a guaranteed trip to New Oikass, Mlsrm or Dallas sup away with all the annual easy wins. Your sdf-iaterest may have gotten ia the way cf cfcjectire repcrtisg- Uzdsn Griffing . Editor's safe: Sizes ths Sisr swi, Crr'js Ecl aal Cotton Zcrl are rl?yeJ dasrj its trsi between b" tsrs co X? Xcbrszm sZ gtt rr$ corzt try of