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
