-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.