Image provided by: University of Oregon Libraries; Eugene, OR
About Oregon daily emerald. (Eugene, Or.) 1920-2012 | View Entire Issue (May 22, 1978)
-editorial endorsements-- " Former Gov. McCall best of Republican field The race for the Republican nomina tion for governor has been one of the most exciting in a rather dull election. The three candidates, Tom McCall, Roger Martin and Victor Atiyeh, have been railing on each other as much as they have been discussing hard is SU6S. McCall, a former two-term governor, is returning to the political arena at the beckon of opinion polls and at the urg ing of people who feel his near legendary status as an Oregon politician will bring cohesiveness to Oregon’s government after a fairly floundering Bob Straub administration. McCall has long been an unpredictable and flashy poiticians, and his style has been a mix ture of eloquence and dashing bold ness. He has shown once again in this spring’s election campaign that he has not lost his style. When you look at McCall’s profile, you half expect to see an FDR-style cigarette holder angling towards the television lights fom his jut ting jaw. He is unparalled in style. During his tenure in office, McCall was able to assemble a staff of talented and active people to work on a wide variety of projects. Some of the ac complishments of the McCall admini stration — though they can’t be cre dited solely to McCall — were the Oregon bottle bill, the Willamette River Greenway, and the state’s impressive land-use planning regulations. McCall has occasionally slipped into the trap of taking credit for initiatives that were not his own, but he is correct in stating that he was a part of many of the good pieces of legislation and the fine ideas brought into existence during his gov ernorship. We think McCall will be able to once again assemble a dedicated staff to carry out some ideas that might become a part of McCall’s return to office. Victor Atiyeh, the present second runner in the polls, strikes us as one of the most sincere and dedicat ed candidates, but we think he would be too much of an administra tive governor. He would be able to coor dinate the state’s agencies and de partments, but we feel he would lack a sense of direction and voice that McCall would bring to the office. Atiyeh has criticized both MaCall and Martin for grandstanding, and he’s right: they are. But that kind of drive and political clout can be an effective tool in accom plishing political goals. We find Atiyeh to be acceptable on the issues, but we don’t think we will be able to provide strong leadership in is sues such as alternative energy de velopment, field burning, the use of herbicides and a myriad of other issues bound to be confronted by the legisla ture in 1979. Atiyeh has been in the legislature for nearly 20 years, and that experience would make him a knowledgeable gov ernor. But we think Atiyeh’s abilities are best suited to the Oregon Senate. There, style is not as important as the workhorse reputation Atiyeh has be come known for. Roger Martin is trying very hard to project an image of the tough guy, the one who will make the tough decision and make it stick. The only problem we see with that is that the decisions Mar tin will make will probably be in disag reement with our own views on all but perhaps one issue: Higher education. Martin is the strongest supporter of in creased legislative funding for the state’s system of higher education, but if that is to be supported, one would sacrifice many other issues to bring Martin’s beliefs on higher education into the governor’s chair. Under Martin, we feel, the state would regress quite a few years in the strive for a goal of new energy sources, cleaner air and better use of the state’s lands. We are very concerned about Martin’s views on bringing in new industries, and we think that of all the candidates in this race, Martin would be the least concerned with preserving environ mental and land-use protections. The other candidates in the Republi can competition have little knowledge of either government or issues. Bill Hewitt, Bud Kretsinger^William Jolley and Gerald Todd are relatively obscure candidates. In our view, none of them would be qualified to sit in the governor’s desk. All in all, McCall seems the best choice. We think he’s avoiding some issues during the primary election, partly because he has to contend with the more conservative Martin and the slightly more conservative Atiyeh. McCall shows a definite strength of character, which is one of the qualifica tions of a good governor. McCall was a good governor during his two terms, and we think he’ll be a good governor for his next term. Democrat Ashworth has exciting potential Emily Ashworth is a phenomenon. She is perhaps the only candidate in the gubernatorial election who is willing to open her mouth and say exactly what she means. She has proven her self again and again to be a feisty, un flinching woman who won’t stand for waffling or fence-straddling. That’s a rare thing for almost any political race these days, and it’s particularly rare in this year’s gubernatorial race. Ashworth has run an undaunted campaign in the face of overwhelming odds: She is taking on an incumbent governor who has far more resources than she. She has taken to her red, white and blue balloon to get her mes sage across to the voters; and her message is clear. Ashworth, if she’s elected, will bring a new energy and direction to the state. She frowns on the use of herbicides and the construction of nudear power plants. She will bring strong leadership in the area of alternative energy source development. She says solar energy is here today. Maybe, but Ashworth will make damn sure it’s here tomorrow. She has attacked Straub, the power of the utilities, the forest industry, nuc lear power, herbicides, and field burn ing all in the same breath and with equal impunity. She’s a beautiful thing to watch. Bob Straub, true to the criticisms made by the Republican candidates as well as Ashworth, has been a lack lustre governor. He hasn’t provided good leadership on a number of issues, and was nowhere near as effective as he could have been in the office. Straub, it seems, has been a waffler and a fence-straddler. He has tried to please all the people all the time and ended up pleasing very few. Ashworth, it has been said, is inex perienced in government. But she is an extremely strong person with firm con victions. We are sure that she will be able to take her convictions to the governor’s desk, where she will be able to cope with the problems of the office. She’s a solid person and a solid candi date. The other candidates, Marv Holling sworth, E. Allen Propst, E. Buck Lam bert and William Patrick seem to have limited knowledge of the issues. Hol lingsworth is the strongest of these, but we can’t agree with his support of the death penalty. His other proposals seem generally impractical. Our endorsement in the Democratic gubernatorial campaign goes une quivocably to Emily Ashworth. We are, of course, aware that many of the things she says and stands for will be next to impossible to pass through the legislature. But Ashworth, above all else, is the symbol of a beginning of a new era for Oregon. She won’t be able to do everything she hopes to do, but even if she only accomplishes a few things, her service to the future of the state will be assured. Hatfield best for U.S. Senate — by default U.S. Senator Mark Hatfield’s strong hold on the U.S. Senate seat seems likely to continue through this year’s election. The Democratic candidates (there are four of them) have nowhere near the kind of statewide familiarity Hatfield has, nor have his Republican challengers. Hatfield is a large tree in Oregon poli tics. But it seems that this year the old adage that the bigger they are the har der they fall won’t become a reality. On the Republican side, Bert Haw kins, Richard Schnepel and Robert Maxwell would be bad choices to re place Hatfield. Hawkins, particularly, upsets us with his views on wilderness areas. He says the expansion of wil derness areas would harm the economy of the state, but we believe wilderness areas are essential for the preservation of Oregon’s land and its nature. Hawkins is also disturbing in his views of abortion (he opposes it) the Equal Rights amendment (he opposes that, too) and his views of foreign policy (with a word, he is a “hawk”). Schnepel would also be a poor choice for U.S. Senator. He is running primarily on the belief that he can re verse the decision to return the Panama Canal to Panamanian control, and his views of other conflicts, such as Vietnam, are dangerous to say the least. Schnepel says that if General McCarthur had invaded China during the Korean war, we would be in a bet ter position in world politics. Schnepel also opposes welfare abortions and the Equal Rights Amendment. Maxwell’s views are not as repug nant as Schnepel’s or Hawkins’ but he is not specific on how he would imple ment such things as inflation controls. Inflation is one of his major issues, but his is unclear on how he would fight inflation. He says returning to free en terprise is the way to conquer inflation, but we doubt whether Maxwell could be able to come up with such a simple answer to an extremely complex ques tion. On the democratic side, Hatfield’s major challenger is probably Vern Cook, who is presently a state senator. Cook has demonstrated a lack of lead ership in the state Capitol, although his views on some issues are commenda ble. His views on higher education loans and welfare abortions are par ticularly good, but we think Cook would be highly ineffective as a Senator. Steve Anderson is a likely second choice for the Democratic nomination, but he also strikes us as a well-minded individual but one who would be an ineffective Senator. He is opposed to nuclear power, and philosophically, he is in the same vein as Emily Ashworth, who is running for governor. We think Anderson might be more aptly suited to a term in the state Legislature before he tries for a high-powered position in the U.S. Senate. Jack Alan Brown has few definite positions, but one of them is to vote the way the majority of Oregonians feel. He criticizes Hatfield for supporting the Panama Canal Treaties because a ma jority of people had evidently opposed them, at least in opinion polls. Candidate Sweeney has some of the most unusual ideas of anyone. He favors reinstituting the draft, beefing up the national security system to re duce unemployment and an “all out” crime suppression program. Sweeney's real zinger is a proposal to create a prisoner’s seniority list, under which a prisoner with the most seniority would be freed when a new prisoner comes in. This to eliminate crowding in the prisons. In light of the fact that none of the candidates presents leadership qual ifications, we think Hatfield should be retained as Senator. We prefer to make no endorsement in the Democratic race, and we give a hesitant nod to Hatfield. Although we disagree with Hatfield in many instances, we think his success ful call for a boycott of Ugandan coffee was one example of his potential. His wilderness opinions, though they don’t call for large increases in wilderness area, at least increased wilderness in the French Pete area and the Kalmiop sis forest, even though he wasn’t as bold as Congressman Jim Weaver in urging wilderness expansion. Hatfield is approaching an important postition with the seniority he has at tained over the last 12 years in the Se nate. That could be important for Oregon. He has good stands on some issues and not-so-good stands on others, but none of his challengers, whether Democratic or Republican, is qualified enough to replace Hatfield in the Senate.
