:y, Au:u-t 25, 1CC0Tho DcHy Tcr Hc::?crc?cct!vZ-7
o
o
i (
'oniocratic convention
r
i f
w
B32
J
-1' t
HDD
A "71
L 7?n r i
g:
SDH.T1K
By BRAD KUTROW
"Would you like to sin a petition for
Jcha Anderson?'' they used to ask,
earnestly. Last spring Anderson's
supporters worked the crowds on
Franklin Street, setting up shop between
the Chapel Hill Anti-Nuclear Group
Effort and the Kappa Alpha Theta
charity balloon sale, seeking the
signatures needed to put him on the
ballot in November.
Although Anderson's organization hit
every lick required by state law to
qualify, he has been denied a place on
the ballot by the State Elections Board.
The decision, which is pending appeal,
cites a "sore loser" clause prohibiting
candidates who have participated in a
party primary from running in the
general election as independents. Just
now, though, it's not clear precisely who
is the sore loser.
The tasks set up for an independent
candidate by the Elections Board are
formidable, but Anderson managed to
accomplish them all. First, campaign
workers gathered 19,400 petition
signatures nearly twice the 10,000
required. State law also requires
candidates to. be affiliated -with a party
and nominated by a convention, : but
there arc no guidelines specifying just
what constitutes a convention.
So
'party" was formed
Independents for Anderson. Its first
and presumably last convention was
held June 28 at the Governor's Inn in the
Research Triangle, and followed
generally the format of the Republican
and Democratic state conventions. Still,
as reporters pointed out, the vagueness
of the state election law could have
permitted any kind of gathering to be
called a party convention. Given the
nature of Anderson's support in the
state, they might as well have called a
Chapel Hill town meeting.
The very ambiguity in election law
that made Anderson's struggle to get on
the ballot difficult eventually thwarted
it at least pending appeal. The
Democratic. National Committee and 1 1
in-state Democratic politicos, including
President Carter's state campaign
chairman Wallace Hyde, sued to keep
Anderson off the ballot. They
contended that Anderson had
participated in the May presidential
primary as a Republican and thus could
net run as an independent in November.
North Carolina is one of several states
rH7
IO
Ai
V
that have a "sore loser" clause
preventing candidates from switching
parties between the primary and general
election.
The state Elections Board voted 3-2
along party lines to bar Anderson from
the ballot, Democrats for and
Republicans against. That decision
seemed to follow the line of thinking
that holds that Anderson will draw
voters from Carter, helping Reagan. The
board ruled that Anderson 'had
participated in the primary and was thus
ineligible.
What is at issue, and what Anderson
attorneys likely will question in their
appeal is the definition of "participate."
Elections laws do not define it, and the
board never has had to rule on that
aspect of the law. Anderson spent only
$2,400 in the state. He opened no
campaign headquarters and, most
importantly, asked that his name be
withdrawn a week before the May 6
primary. These are not the actions of a
whole-rjearted primary participant.
Anderson's appeal of the board's
decision was to be heard in court
Wednesday, and a restraining order has
been issued barring the printing and
distribution of ballots. No irreversable
damage has been done to his chances at
presstime. Even so, the Elections
j ;Board't jseemingly partisan t manner of '
handling the Anderson 5 case reflects :
poorly , on the two-party system the
independent strongly supports.
Although voters had no real chance to
assess Anderson in the primary, the
board moved to deny them that chance
in the general election. It is as if the
Democrats were out to scuttle
Anderson's candidacy and prove him
wrong as well. They, it seems, are sore
losers of the moderate vote.
Ironically, the Elections Board ruled
that the "Independents for Anderson"
party it had required campaigners to
form in the first place was a "genuine"
party. As such, it could name another
candidate to take Anderson's place on
the ballot. That seems a pointless
suggestion; who could they get?
For the record, there's a John B.
Anderson now living in Carrboro who
says he'd be glad to help out the
Iiiinoisian with the same name. Said the
Carrbiro Anderson, "That'd be kinda
cool.'4
Thai would be kinda cool.
Brad Kutrow, a senior political science
major1 from Wilmington, is associate
editor for The Daily Tar Heel.
By THOMAS JESSIMAN
The rice part about the Democratic convention was
the tribute to Walter Cronkite by CE3 after his last ,
night as the network's convention anchorman. The
nasty part happened about half an hour earlier when
Teddy Kennedy walked to the podium to display
"party unity."
As Jimmy beamed and Jerry Brown shrunk into the
shadows, Teddy shook the president's outstretched
hand and immediately moved on and chatted with
other politicians. Two media experts kept wondering
when the customary "hands-in-the-air" salute would
come for Kennedy and Carter, but nothing ever
happened. Both men had grins that seemed tacked to
their faces. As Kennedy left Carter patted him on the
back but Teddy did not even turn.
Afterwards political columnist George Will said it
best: "Sometimes it's best just to be blunt. And the
plain truth is that those two men simply don't like each
other." Up to that last confrontation of the two men,
the convention had gone very well for Carter. He had
won the battle over whether to release the delegates,
and after a bitter battle concerning a Kennedy plank
calling for more jobs, he even appeared to win the
senator over to a full endorsement.
But the differences between Carter and Kennedy on
major issues were just too great for them to feign
reconciliation. Their greatest source of contention lies
in the economy. Kennedy's support for wage and price
controls and a $12 billion anti-recession program aimed
at getting jobs for the unemployed is totally
unacceptable to the Carter forces, and for Kennedy to
set ail these aside and wholeheartedly endorse the
president would have been as hypocritical as George
Bush's actions at the Republican convention four
weeks ago.
No one really knows how hard Kennedy is going to
A persuasive speech
work for the Carter campaign this fall, whether he will
give one or five speeches. Out the icy meeting on the
podium Thursday right told much about the confusion
and division in the Democratic Party and hi-hli-hted
the differences between the two men responsible for
that split that ran deeper than issues,
Kennedy's Tuesday night speech outlining the views
of the Democrats' liberal wing and recalling the
heritage and stature of the party demonstrated that at
long last he knows exactly where he stands. His claim
that he had come "not to argue for a candidacy, but to
affirm a cause" drew cheers his cause having a strong
appeal for the partisan delegates.
Carter's speech on the other hand, lacking the
eloquence and power of Kennedy's, seemed to be
directed more toward the threat of Ronald Rergn and
was filled with pleasant though hollow-sounding
promises for the future.
The plain truth is that he has sifted through four
years of the presidency with so little consistency that by
now no one is very sure where he stands or where his
base will be in November.
Carter always has seen himself as working without
the assistance of the political types and party bosses,
and perhaps this was admirable in his climb to tHe top '
four years ago. But he has found out the hard way as
president that it is necessary to work with those people.
He needs the party this year because his opposition is so
well organized, and he needs Kennedy because
Kennedy is no longer a misguided senator without a
base as he was seven months ago.
But at this time it looks as if he has lost Kennedy.
Perhaps the sight of Carter and Kennedy on the
podium was the first of many Carter and Kennedy
appearances, but more likely the coldness evident there
will not make such appearances frequent. Kennedy's
campaign was long and hard fought, and he will not
soon forget the times when Carter was a less-than-gracious
winner and when the president failed to
concede anything to the vanquished.
By ELIZABETH DANIEL
Edward Kennedy may have lost the contest for the -Democratic
presidential nomination, but from the
cheers of the convention delegates no one would ever
know.
When Carter appeared before the New York
' convention to accept the nomination hjj wasrece!yed,,r
like a poor relation. Yet, whenever Kennedy appeared
the delegates cheered as if he were a savior.
On the second 1 night of the convention, when
. Kennedy delivered, his persuasive speech, the delegates
showed an enthusiam absent throughout the rest of the
convention. For 37 minutes, they shouted "We want
Teddy," and waved Kennedy placards.
During those frantic minutes of spontaneous
applause, it looked as though Kennedy could have
called for another vote on the "freeing-the-delegatcs"
issue and come out a winner.
However, the chance for a Kennedy victory had
passed. The delegates were telling Kennedy he had
fought a good fight. They were sending a message
saying they desired a candidate with an enthusiasm and
vigor that Carter surely lacks. Though a loser, Teddy
appealed to their hearts in a way Carter never will.
The scene at Madison Square Garden that Tuesday
night was reminiscent of the days before Kennedy
announced his intention to run and the whole country
was waiting for the announcement. That night he
spoke with a farce and power that easily made one
forget the babbled incoherencies of his campaign.
But Kennedy was in his clement. The crowd was
friendly. He was delivering a speech about a cause he
truly espouses, not Teddy Kennedy himself, but what
but that Kennedy won the convention with his Tu::d:y
Somebody said Carter may have wen the norrilaaii an
n:;ht speech; The vastly different recpenrrs to tl.z'J
speeches might confirm r this Kennedy drew a
37-minute ovation while Carter's was clearly Ie:s
heralded. 'C
In part, the great enthusiasm for Kennedy v as due to
'And Carter needs
Kennedy because
Kennedy is no
longer a misguided
senator without a
base.'
the eagcr-to-cheer delegates. Kennedy's delegates were
releasing their frustration after a grueling campaign;
and Carter's delegates, flushed with victory, were free
to cheer the speech because Kennedy was no longer a
threat.
But beyond that, the real reason Kennedy stole the
show is that for the first time he struck chords that
appeal to a significant portion of his party a portion
that Carter, even with his penchant for going it alone,
cannot afford to let slip away.
Thomas Jessiman, a junior English major from
Newton, Mass., is associate editor for The Daily Tar
Heel.
n 7i
stiles ia in
FS.(DTO 3'(DLeJl
cui. Li,
he believes to be the true ideals of the Democratic
Party. He was selling national health insurance, social
security, and most of all, the government's
responsibility to assure every man a job.
By calling for continued government intervention,
Kennedy struck a note of pride in the souls of those
Democrats in Madison Square Garden; he told them
1
I 'When the
' delegates heard
i Kennedy actually
I proposing things
land not just
making poor Jokes
about the
Republicans, they
went wild.
r
4
J
there really was a difference between the Republican
and Democratic parties.
He told them the Democratic Party was still the party
of hope and wasted no time summoning the memory of
his dead brothers to lighten the emotional peak he was
trying to reach.
When the delegates heard Kennedy actually
proposing things and not just making poor jokes about
the Republicans, they went wild. It was as if they were
determined to show the country that Democrats, too,
could be happy in 1SS0.
The delegates were inspired by Kennedy's vision of
the Democratic Party. He described a party that put
the poor and friendless first in its policies and shunned
the rich and powerful.
When the delegates approved the economic platform
plank, cheering Kennedy at every turn, they were trying
to return to the days of Jhe.;a iDfmocra.tiq spirit
that -Kennedy embodies. k:...
They did not seem to think about the effect of a $12
billion job program on inflation. They wanted to be
good Democrats, so they gave jobs top priority.
Those Democrats at the convention represented the
core of the party, but in approving the minority
platform positions they strayed from its broader base.
The delegates did not acknowledge the growing
national discontent with increased government
intervention. Instead they returned to the "Democratic
heritage" of a strong yet helpful government.
Kennedy's speech recalled all of that liberal heritage,
and it was impressive. His demand for aid to the
underprivileged represented an idealism that is
generally absent in these days of tax cut talk. But,
lower taxes, not increased government spending, seem
to be what most people want.
Kennedy may have won the hearts of that band of
Democrats in New York, but his platform positions
proved he represents too narrow a group to have won
the election in November.
Elizabeth Daniel a sophomore political science and
English major from Perry, Fla., is a staff writer for The
Daily Tar Heel.
Pooitiono a parado
-
(BCEQH
jnr.
3
TO
77 O
moot chmHGmmtic cm
77
The probability that John Anderson
v.lll win the presidency in November
seems roughly approximate to a
snowball's chance ' in hell. Still,
Anderson's independent candidacy
clears to be the strongest since Teddy
Roosevelt ran as a Progressive in 1312,
an J no one is sure just how it will affect
the Cartcr-Rcsr.an race. What could
happen, tv.i vshit the;: of us who
fellow politics fret over as we fall asleep
at r.'j!.:, is that the Anderson snowball
m;ht knock the election so far off
t:'ance that it would tumtle into the
Ibu e cf Representatives.
The 12th Amendment, pssed in
fives the Houe authority to elect a
r :r ;J!:nt if no candidate w Ins a majority
cf ih; electors! vote. It v-s written after
the election cf MOO uas deadlocked
between Ar.ron l!.:rr tr J Thomas
J:ffcrscn, with Jefferson winning an
l'icz:t political tattle in the House.
only one ether
Jefferson,
1
-::' -A Je!::iQ
t ;;; t!.M:J by the ILrj e.
'i v:: a r :" : y in l.;.sa
J c;r lu '. :.:.t Ortrr f.i
. h i:t I ' :' ts rl:k tp
n
V i f .11. If C;t:r : 1
V ; t'
'. : a
4 W'l' .! i
: i ' .
1 1 i:
cf : it
re:
r
1 r I . ' f ... r .., 1 '
: ' ; th:y ! "
I1 : r?C'-:.!;::t
w ould be chosen by the House with each
state'l delegation having one vote.
Democrats now control 29
delegations, Republicans 12 with nine
evenly split. But the delegations would
caucus to determine their votes in
January 1931, after members elected in
November are seated. The GOP
delegations are likely to remain in
control of their 12 states, but Democrats
have only one-seat margins in five. If the
Republicans pick up a seat in each of
those five and one in each split state,
they theoretically would win control of
the House presidential election.
That is about as likely as Anderson
getting elected. But Republican
campaign strategists hope to win enough
House races in November to give them
control of 25 delegations enough for a
majority by gaining only 24 scats.
All this speculation w 111 be apocryphal
if cne candidate does win a majority or
if the more conservative Democratic
liberal Republican delegations start
compromising. And if the Anderson
snowball, well, snowballs, end he wins
the pepuhir vote, there is no telling w hat
mght heppen in the Il-rcve.
Perhaps the movt authoritative
prediction set comrs frerna West
Virginia p- J .c wh-j pi. led Carter in
1V76 and Ceor-e Rh as RcnalJ
ne-:-,ns running mate this ear. She
tzyt the election will f j to the House
end that a Denv.vrct w;!l win.
I:.-.. 1. President i 1 11, rd.
By GEORGE SHADROUI
To many television viewers the Republican
convention was nothing more than a congregation of
flag-waving anti-intellectuals whose taste for apple pie
made many a stomach ache. Too much pie does that,
you know.
Indeed, the GOP platform and the Republican Party
offer America a choice. There will be no more "har
assed" conservatism, as Carry Gcldwater miht say.
The platform leaves little doubt as to where the Ukes of
Sen. Jesse Helms and company w ould like to take this
country. The unanswered question ii where Ronald
Reagan plans to take it should he defeat President
Jimmy Carter come November.
Rec-an's performance at the convention startled
many of us who ence carelessly labeled him an
extremist. While John Andersen's politics may be more
palatable to this writer, Reican came off as a movinj,
gracious and sincere presidential hopeful.
He is as CI13 political analyst Jeff Greenfield dared
to say the principal political rhetorician cf our time.
He is a powerful presence at the podium, ccr.bir.hs
wit and charm with a enthusiasm for - speaking that
makes him perhaps the most charismatic presidential
candidate tines Jcha F. Kennedy.
Still, Reccan is a parados. And by r.o means has he
proven him::lf ready to tzzil: the re:r-cn;llii!tk$ cf
the nation's hi: nest office.
statement! as proof of t cxtrern;:m. Thry C:o
correctly pclm out that should he express himself in
similar fishlcn preside"!, we may cense to rereet Mi
v.i-nin-.
Just as tn-pcrtintly they ' crir.;e tt Renin's
-,. -v . . t , ., - i s - if - -'- s- - j . - - . S -
simply because he lias failed to study and understand
complex problems. He brings a surprinn myopia to
such questions as the development of energy resources,
the necessity of environmental protection and the
importance of a foreign policy that encourages the
participation of U.S. allies.
If Reasan is to be a successful candidate cr president
he must be sincere in his conviction that tdl people in
the United States deserve equal opportunity. He must
not allow extremists in the GOP to return this r ation to
the 1950's.
Reenan once said, "There are simple solutioni, just
not easy ones." With that enalysii I must bej to differ.
In the real world there are neither simple nor easy
solutions.
Still, Reagan preaches the traditional values cf
family, work and peace through strength. Many people
in this country, tired cf the propensity cn the part cf
certain segments cf cur society to overind-!;: in self
ridicule, are pleasantly pleased by this man who still
believes this country is ripe for ecnievirs dreams end
exercising precious freedom. People bckir.j for
answers find them in Regan's wcrdt.
However, Rcacaa irks literals enJ D:m;cre:s with
his bold appraisal of the position ia the w;:l J to I Mi
this country should aspire. While they rrey ?;ree whh
his broadest diagnosis of the ills f !;.'-; tl U."!:rJ
States, they find the imp!emen:;t;oei cf lit cures
misguided end potentially dan;ercs.s.
Such fears jenerally are ovcrex:;;e;e:e J. After ell,
this is politics e! its finest. Since when hive president iil
candidates spckeei in tr.:hh-j tut fl::i:.des enJ
seneral.les? Rea;m plays th- jam? cf pel! :1c ts well
cr tetter thin the Democrats ever could hop? to.
.-in. Perh-pi th: terms
can til' ' epproi-; cf F.
Ill era! tnd conservetie ri lorp:? r::i
Perheps censervitism c.':.s lamrtl !- in re 1
hi-.? I- i s'ht cf; the poer cf the sn:. :...!.
i .le Carter rr.y well rr!? in tt::M;nt .
. .e.-cnd-:y
u r.s's.:!.:?
or enhance the spirit of the American people.
This in itself is a frihtenins testimony to the rise of
Rea-an. Those being drawn toward him would be
foolish not to ask an obvious question: Has the public
turned to this man cut cf a desperate need for a leader
who promises to reach unreachable stars?
'Perhaps the terms
"liberal" and
"conservative" no
longer means
anything. Per heps
ccrj-enet&m offers
something some
liberals have last
slzkt cf: the power
cf the individuel. '
Yet whatever c! e r.nn..'d I'lr v i' 1 rerr . .j I
mystery. Is e a r !-w;rt ; rnr. : crrta' i to I 1
us into Arm : : d 1. n? Is le a t;: t.' Ii-; ; :hl. ;
whose t rk it v.: r:e th. n 1.1s ti'e? Is ! e ; : : .:. z
mister cf d p.l.e, who pre.es lie." .rv'..e
rhetcria in s.;sr-c: :ei te-':' :ri i ' ito:;; r
th: msssn?
Th.rse t:s qaest! :ns r. ery Ar. n m r.t t.r.u,:t :t
himsslf in tpecmir: we:ls. I.. I cn; ti l": is ceruln.
Th.e r.nt president cf tl :LV i':d States w.ll tetler.e.n
who ccninees the p;-;l: cf f.s rr': '5 t t tl ;
cr
4 - fc i
t if
l.tratlon : i If its c i
tl'cta': the future tf ?r ; fr;e va-rU.
. .;S tt l'
.r.iy w..i r st
sJr- a is-
Cft
this c
n:ry. He erinsi to Li;k d,;:: in rr;ny um.
term prrs.dent, he his r.ai thoA.nen
::ffrc -lSy.:!-jry, ii f J.::;r cf 11 ? V f ll! fir:-