opinion
John Anderson For Pres.
John Anderson for presi
dent? Yes, after taking a long
hard look at all three can
didates, I feel that the best of
them is the one that is least like
ly to get the job. Why is he the
least likely to get the job?
Because he does not have the
monetary advantage of being
supported by a political party.
He lost the Republican votes
because he was just too liberal
for the Republican taste.
After
watching
the
Republican convention, I
would dump the party too. The
future cannot be solved by the
past, which is what the
Republican Party asks us to ac
cept.
At the helm of the
Republican Party is, of course,
Ronald Reagan.
OIGGS
protects the environment
(good), he signed the Panama
canal treaty (good), wind-fall
profits tax (good), and the
Middle-East treaty (very good).
Unfortunately for every good
thing done, something bad
looms over Carter’s Presiden
cy. The biggest, of course, is in
flation. When he became Presi
dent, the unemployment rate
was 7.4 percent and the infla
tion rate was 4.8 percent.
Carter added the two to make
a “misery index” of 14, which
he called “a travesty”. In
August of 1980, unemploy
ment was at 7.6 percent and
inflation was at 12.8 percent.
That puts his misery index at
more than 20. The dollar of
1976 is now worth 69 cents.
In a nutshell, Jimmy Carter
has failed on inflation. He has
by R. Diggs
FOR EXXON, STANDARD, MOBIL, GULF AND TEXACO -
Reagan likes to use one-
liners to describe his policies.
He is against everything I|
stand for, and he is for
everything I am against. I am
for progression, and he is for
regression. I want a clean
environment-he doesn’t, the
list goes on, and on, and on.
Carter is better, but not by
much. He prefers diplomacy to
military action (good), he is
progressive (good), he is a
human rights activist (good),
he supports ERA (good), he
not done one single thing to get
OPEC off the country’s back.
Carter created the “Solar
Energy Research Institute,
Synthetic Fuels Corporation”,
a joke and a half. (In 1975,
Carter criticized Gerald Ford’s
proposal to develop synthetic
fuels).
On the international front,
we are in deeper trouble than
when Carter took office. Three
major crisis have occurred in a
year. He has efficiently ex
ploited all of them for political
purposes and has yet to im
prove them-the take-over of
the American Embassy in Iran,
the Soviet’s invasion of
Afghanistan, and the discovery
of Russian troops in Cuba.
On the Embassy take-over,
the hostages are still there and
Carter is trying all diplomatic
channels (save an apology).
When was the last time he
publicly said anything about the
hostages? Is he ignoring the
crisis so he doesn’t look so bad?
“The Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan could be the most
serious crisis since World War
II” our deadly serious President
said. Cancelling grain
shipments and boycotting the
Olympics wdre the only
measures taken. Did boycot
ting the Olympics stop the 7
Nazis in 1932? It hasn’t stop
ped the Soviets in 1980. The
Russians haven’t moved an
inch out of Afghanistan.
Carter gave the discovery of
the 2,500 Russian troops in
Cuba a crisis treatment. “It was '
unacceptable,” he said. After
two weeks, .it disappeared from
To the editor—
Speaking of “...just telling
the people what they want to
hear.” In reference to the Oct.
8 issue’s editorial opposing
Reagan’s cainpaign tactics,
how about Carter’s woos to
voters?
In his ’76 campaign he had
promised to make coal the na
tion’s number one energy
source-yet since then, one
finds that nuclear power efforts
have increased even more than
hydro or solar energy, much
less coal. This leads one to
THE PRINT, member of the Oregon Newspaper Publishers Association,
aims to be a fair and impartial journalistic medium covering the campus
community as thoroughly as possible. Opinions expressed in THE
PRINT do not necessarily reflect those of the College administration,
faculty, or Associated Student Government.
Office: Trailer B Telephone : 656-8400, ext. 309, 310
editor: Thomas A. Rhodes
assignment editor: Matt Johnson; news editor: David Hayden;
arts editor: Michael L. Rose; feature editor: Steve Lee
sports editor: Rick Obritschkewitsch; photo editor Duffy Coffman
staff writers: John Baker, Linda Cabrera, Ed Coyne, Richard Green
Jim Haynes, Tom Jeffries, Benjamin Munhall
staff photographers: Ramona Isackson, Sue Hanneman
typesetter: Kathy Walmsley artist: Lynn Griffith
advertising & business manager: Dan Chample
adviser: J. Faraca
suspect Carter’s biased towards
nuclear .power. Perhaps
because he is an educated
nuclear-physicist and during his
early ’76 campaign was noted
for his favor of nuclear power;
that is, until his campaign
reached the industrial Nor
theast, where he changed his
stand in favor of the coal in
dustry.
In this year’s campaign,
Carter has been running
around like Santa Claus,
distributing
gifts
of
developmental
grants,
transportation grants, and
various other federal funding
while on his campaign stops.
A not-so-subtle ’sweetening
of the pot’ to gain voter support
from the area? Don’t mis-read
my intentions, I don’t mean to
downgrade Carter in favor of
Reagan. To quote a phrase,
“To choose between them is
like choosing between Tweedie
Dum and Tweedie Dee.”
(Which expresses my feelings
perfectly). But since the issue
was brought up, I just thought
I’d add my two cents worth, for
arguments sake.
-KAREN PROUTY
the headlines. The troops are
still there.
What does this leave us
with? John Anderson. Is he an
alternative to Carter and
Reagan? Yes, he is. He refuses
to promise the voters tax cuts
until he gets the government in
shape. Anderson refuses to
support the missile and the B-l
bomber, both multi-million
dollar nuclear-revitalize-the-
military-in-a-snap-“boondog-
gles”. His plan to revise the
military, is to start with the per
sonnel rather than shoveling
out millions of dollars on
machinery. This is a realistic at
titude of ‘start with the most im
portant’. It is a realistic view as
to how we will fight the ifutdre
wars.
One of his most controversial
proposals is his 50 cent-a-
gallon gas tax. The tax would
be used to reduce the social
security tax which means more
take-home pay. This .would
dramatically reduce oil con
sumption. With the increased
take-home pay people could
spend money on other things--
plus make people more energy
conscious through thè need for
carpooling and mass transit.
With more expensive gas, peo
ple would have to. form car
pools and take buses. This is a
realistic way to approach the
energy shortage. Reagan’s ap
proach is to rip apart the en
vironment by letting the oil
companies loose throughout
the continental states. There
goes the environment.
Anderson has had 20 years
congressional experience,
voting on every major issue this
country has faced in the last
two decades. He strongly sup
ports ERA. He is favoring abor
tion (count the number of
teenage pregancies last year).
He favors gun control. The
most important reason I am
supporting him is this: during
thes debate the two candidates
were asked, if they were Presi
dent, what decision would they
-make that would be unpopular
with the public. Reagan said, in
essense, that he would not
make any decision unpopular
to the public?; Anderson
pointed outhis 50 cents gas tax
and the fact that he would not
support the enormous tax cuts
proposed by both party can
didates until the government is
in shape;
Carter is seeing and raising
every tax proposal the
Republicans offer, and is mak
ing decisions according to the
recent polls (note the tragic
rescue attempt, the tax cuts,
and military spending) , At first
(before the ‘76 election)"7 he
supported a decrease of the
military spending. Now that
people want an increase in
spending, Carter announces a
$100 million increase in the
military budget. A poll-man if
there ever was one.
John Anderson has the abili
ty to go in front of people and
say just what they don’t want to
hear. Going in front of
McDonald-Douglas (designers
and builders of the MX missile)
and telling them the MX Is an
incredible waste of money took
guts. Unlike Reagan’s complete
turn around in his speech to the
auto workers. Supporting the
Chrysler bailout was something
he was against strongly until his
little chat with Lee Iacocca
(president of Chrysler). He is a
yes-man for big business.
John Anderson has the
leadership we need. Open,
honest, straight-forward, and
most important, realistic of the
problems we are currently fac
ing and the ones we will be fac
ing in the years to come. That
is why I am voting for John
Anderson for President.
THOMAS A. RHODES