Page 4-Friday, October 20, 1978-The Michigan Daily
tie 3ich gan 3 aiI
Eighty-Nine Years of Editorial Freedomn
Vol. LIX, No. 37 News Phone: 764-0552
ldited and managed by students at the University of Michigan
City Council wastes time
Nixon arsenic for G.O.P.
T HE ANN ARBOR City Council has
never been known for alacrity.
The weekly Monday night meetings
appear to be mere exercises in
triviality; Councilmembers spend
seemingly endless hours discussing
preposals which are either inadequate
or have no legal basis and therefore
no hope of passage, or those members
who are seeking higher offices use the
time to "show off" for the media.
The major problem is
Councilmembers don't do their
homework. The Council could better
spend its time debating the intrinsic
merits of proposals rather than
correcting gramatical errors.
For example:
Members of both parties waste
valuable time discussing a comma
here and a "whereas" there, while
more important matters go unattended
because by the end of the evening
everybody is frustrated over the trivial
matters. When Albert Wheeler was
mayor, meetings frequently lasted
until the wee hours of the morning. The
same trivia and petty bickering went
on, and meetings had the same sircus-
type quality. Now Mayor Louis
Belcher effectively restricts
meetings to 11 p.m. deadlines, but the
fat has not been trimmed. It's merely a
circus that starts and ends on time.
Last Monday night's meeting
furnished two examples of
irresponsible delays. Fourth Ward.
Councilman David Fisher tries to
restrict enrollment of children at
Community Day Care Center through
an amendment to the site plan, which
Council approved. The plan was to
expand the Center's ground floor
because a state fire inspector has ruled
out use of the building's second floor.
Mr. Fisher's amendment was said to
be totally unenforceable; since
building inspectors cannot be expected
to spend their time counting bodies.
The intent of the amendment was to
satisfy irate neighbors who complain
of excess noise and traffic. But the
amendment was not an enforceable
measure, and it did not really address
the problem. All of these faults with the
proposal could have been checked in
advance, and corrected prior to the
meeting, instead of wasting close to
half of one hour at the meeting itself.
Councilman Earl Greene (D-Second
Ward) asked the city attorney to
request an opinion on whether two Ann
Arbor Bank employees, who are city
councilmembers, could vote on issuing
a bond to the bonding authority. The
bond would eventually be sold to build
a parking structure behind the bank's
Liberty St. branch.
Greene's request seemed to be a
spur of the moment gesture, which he
had not researched. Consideration of
this bond has gone on for weeks, so it
seems strange that a possible conflict
of interest suddenly comes to mind.
Instead the inquiry seemed to be a ploy
to gain media attention. Greene is
running for U.S. Congress and has
been noticably more vocal since
announcing his candidacy.
Unlike the University Regents who
barely figure out the issues involved in
time for their meetings, City Council
members are frequently in contact
with city hall officials and with their
constituents. They have ample
opportunity to clarify details of
ordinances and resolutions in advacne
of their Monday night free-for-alls.
They can work out minor language
matters in advance. They can ask the
city attorney's office for the legal
feasibility or ramifications of any
legislation before meetings.
If members sof Council do their
honiework, ' policy questions can~ be
dealt with at their meetings, instead of
wasting a lot of time and energy on
trivialities.
By C.J. Moore
WASHINGTON-"Stupid." "Unviable."
"A disservice to the party." "Hopelessly
dishonest." "I don't want him in my district."
Richard Nixon is on our television screens
again. Crowds cheer him; commentators
speculate about him; foreign statesmen
speak of him with respect.
But with next month's congressional
elections fast approaching, Republican Party
leaders and regulars-the former president's
staunchest supporters from the days of the
1952 Nixon fund crisis to his resignation over
Watergate in 1974-make no bones aboutvit.
They still consider Nixon a political skeleton
best kept in a tightly-locked closet.
Speaking about the former president on and
off the record, Republicans on Capitol Hill
agree nearly ten-to-one that Richard Nixon
should not venture out during the current
campaign on behalf of GOP candidates. "I've
got a tough enough battle for re-election," one
Republican senator said, "even without the
Nixon albatross around my neck."
ALTHOUGH THERE has been much
softening of Republican animosity toward
Nixort over the past few years, most party
members express continuing disfavor with
the ex-president and lay blame for the
lopsided Democratic majorities in both
houses squarely on Nixon's Casa Pacifica
doorstep.
Southern Republicans remain especially
embittered against the party leader they
believe destroyed the GOP's entire "Southern
strategy." The Republican Party, they note,
had been making steady gains in the New
Southfor 20 years-until Nixon's disgrace
undid decades of patient political work.
"He's done tremendous damage to the
party," said Rep. William Dickinson of
Alabama. "Everything we worked so hard for
was torn apart by his inability to accept the
blame for his acts. He brought the entire
party down."
Would Dickinson invite Nixon to his
district? "I suppose if someone asked me to
invite him I would, but I. would not take the
initiative." Like many Republican leaders
around the country, the Alabama
congressman said he can see no future role
for Nixon in any public service.
Another Southerner, Rep. James Martin of
North Carolina, said, "I think he will achieve
a somewhat higher profile through his own
effortsmwith the press, but I don't think he will
ever be vialbe in the political arena again."
Martin said he believes Nixon no longer
presents a threat to the party but neither does
he consider the former president an asset.
LIKE MANY OTHER successful
candidates, Dickinson andEMartin rode out
the Republican election disaster of 1974 by
divorcing themselves from the Nixon image
that brought defeat to party loyalists who
supported "the former president until the
bitter end.
Since then, more and more Republican
candidates, as one Washington source put it,
have learned to treat Nixon like "political
arsenic." By the 1976 elections, it was not
unusual for GOP candidates-first-timers
and incumbents alike-to exclude not just
Nixon, but any reference to the Republican
Party from their billboards, posters and
campaign literature. "Play down the party"
became the main strategy for surviving the
aftermath of the Nixon years. Another maxim
was "stay away from 'fat cat' imagery."
Thus the campaign posters of Rep. William
Cohen of Maine-one of the few Republicans
on the Judiciary Committee to survive the
voters' wrath in,1974-showed him in jeans
and workshirt, not ain a GOP three-piece suit.
In 1976, Rep. Arlan Stangeland of Minnesota
rode to victory perched on a tractor. Another
reason he defeated a heavily-favored
Democratic opponent was that he did not run
on the ticket of the old Nixon Party. He called
himself, even on the ballot, an Independent-
Republican.
Though the examples were numerous, the
strategy was the same. Republicans had to
seem to be hardly Republican at all. Thus the
party divorced itself from the Nixon years,
tipped its hat to Gerald Ford, struck up the
reform movement band and embraced the
concept of a "do-something Congress." It
became vital for many Republicans to
as for independent pursuit of Republican
ideals.
It was a move that soon yielded political
dividends. In four special elections for seats
considered Democratic strongholds,
Republicans won three. Like Strangeland in
Minnesota, Reps. John Cunningham of
Washington and Robert Livingston of
Louisiana ran on platforms noticeably devoid
of Republican symbolism and Nixon-style
rhetoric.
THIEN ENTERED) the 1978 election
scene-full of flourishing, if still modest,
hopes for Republican candidates-a revived,
recuperated Richard Nixon complete with
new grandchild and another on the way. It is
more than enough to make a staunch "New
Republican" blanch.
Do any of the Republicans up-for election
this year want the newest new Nixon on his
side? From New York to Ohio, from Florida
to North Dakota, the overwhelming response
to Nixon's re-emergence has been even-
tempered dismay, adefinite "not in my
district and not in my party."
Like many Republicans, Rep. Ralph
Regula, an Ohio moderate whose district is
ringed'by Democrats, still praises the Nixon
foreign policy record but cannot forgive the
ex-president's failure to act decisively at the
beginning of the Watergate scandal.
"He could have been the most effective
president this eountry has ever seen," Regula
said. "He could been a hero, but he was
stupid. He gave the staff the impression they
could do as they pleased and he never stopped
it. He should have fired them all ,right from
the start."
What would he do if Nixon supported his re-
election campaign? "If he were to come to my
district, I would find any excuse to be
somewhere else. I wouldn't want to be
associated with him-not out of any animosity
but because I don't think he could be good for
the party anymore."
That belief cuts across ideological lines.
Rep. William Walsh of New York, a
conservative, said, "I would just stay in.
Washington if Nixon visited my district. I just
think he did too much damage to the party."
BUT A FEW Republicans disagree. "I think
he's paid his dues," said Minnesota's
Strangeland. "What higher price could a man
pay than to be removed from office and
virtually exiled for four years?" Strangeland
suggested that the party might offer Nixon an
advisory role, but that offer would be "ve,
hush, hush."
Other party members believe Nixon shou
be made an elder statesman. Maryland Re
Marjorie Holt advocates such a position b
does not want him involved in party politic
She describes Nixon as a man who
"character is flawed by an inherent strain
dishonesty that would raise too many doub
as to his ability to serve the public.
Illinois Rep. Paul Findley, who conferr(
with Nixon before a recent China trip, said
would welcome the former president in
official role as an advisor on Sino-Sovi
affairs. Findley said he had no reservatior
about greeting Nixon in his home district, bi
he saidhis constituents still are "preti
negative" about the ex-president.
Rep. Cohen of Maine, who is seeking
Senate seat this year, probably identifies t
main GOP worry when he notes that whet
one loathes or forgives the former preside
Richard Nixon cannot help but remind vote
of the past. and, distracL attention fro~
Republican plans for the future. Rather th
either repudiating or rehabilitating NixoT
Cohen believes Republicans shoul
concentrate on younger leaders such as Rep:
Philip Crane of Illinois and Jack Kemp
New York.
Perhaps Rep. John Anderson, anothe
Illinois legislator to survive Watergate, ha
the most representative Republican respons
to Nixon's re-emergence.
"The Republican Party is generally
forgiving group," said Anderson, who heai
the House Republican Conference and ha,
been mentioned as a GOP presidentia
contender in 1980, "and certainly its attitud
has relaxed over the years. But the majorit
would say to Mr. Nixon, who has lived in sel
imposed exile for four years, 'As you emerg
from Casa Pacifica, do as you please as
private citizen, but stay away from an,
statements that could in any way imply tha
you are speaking for the party.' Of course,
he said, "there will be recognition for th
office he held-the job that he did-but't
accept him in a party or political sense is n
acceptable to Republicans. Private, ye~
Public, certainly not."
Moore is a Washington-based observf
of Republican party politics. This artic
was written for the PacificNews Service.
The neutron bomb mistake
B Y ORDERING production of some
components of the neutron bomb,
President Carter has all but disclosed
that the United States intends to go
ahead with this unneeded weapon,
despite its' potential for making
nuclear war more likely.
The neutron bomb - known by the
Pentagon euphemism as an "enhanced
radiation warhead" - is the weapon
that has made war less destructive to
property. Originally designed as a
NATO response to the massive Soviet
tank buildup in Europe' the bomb
produces twice the deadly radiation of
a conventional bomb with only a tenth
of the explosive power - or to put it
crudely but realistically, it kills people
without ruining surrounding buildings.
Any weapon which ,makes mass
destruction convenient and nice makes
the threshold of nuclear war plummet
into the realm of not only possible but
probable. Relations between, the
United States and the USSR are
already strained as a result 'of the
dissident trials, and Soviet
imperialism in Africa. After all, it
makes war a much more palatable
option. States always lose in war; the
question is whether a state will gain
more than, enough to compensate for
the loss. With the likelihood that
factories and power plants would be
spared in an exchange of neutron
bombs, any state would only need the
smisguided belief that its military
strength is stronger than the opposition
to move first.
The neutron bomb should not be built
period. Now, by producing some of
the components and stockpiling others,
weapons quicker than President
Carter can change his stance on an
issue.
President Carter has shown a
definite lack of leadership in keeping
up with his campaign promise to cut
defense waste. With the exception of
the veto of the unneeded aircraft
carrier, he has yet to give the defense
department a definitive and
unequivocable "No!" Even in
cancelling the B-1 bomber, the
President left the door open for
possible future development.
Since the administration has already
shown that it is proceeding with the
neutron bomb development, discussion
of the weapon's immorality is at this
stage ex-post-facto. But the President
should be warned not to use the threat
of nuclear devastation as a means of
"talking tough" to the Soviets in next
weeks' SALT negotiations. Let's hope
for the sake of the world that President
Carter will reverse the hawkish trend
his administration is setting.
ibe 1 icj an Uai
EDITORIAL STAFF
Editors-inchief
Letters to the Daily
DAVIDGOODMAN
GREGG KRUPA
Managing Editors
EILEEN DALEY
KEN PARSIG IAN
- D)AN OBERI )ORFER
Editorial Director
RENE BECKER
Magazine Editors
LIZ SLOWIK SUE WARNER
STAFF WRITERS: Michael Arkush, Carol Azzizian, Richard
Berke, Leonard Bernstein, Brian Blanchard, Ron Benshoter,
Mitch Cantor. lonna De rodt, Eleonora diLiscia, Marianee
Egri, Dan Ezekiel. Josh Garrson, Ron Giffor'd, Sue Hollman,
Elisa Isaacson, Carol Koletsky, Paula Laxhinsky, Marty Levine,
Adrienne Lyons, Chester Moleski, Mark Parrent, Judy Rakow-
sky, Ma rthai Retalliek ,Keith Richbur. Kevin Roseorou.
Daily stance
rapped
To the Daily:
I am tired of the Daily's anti-
Proposal D endorsement.
Thursday's front-page article
"Age Hike won't reduce
drinking" was an outrageous
invitation to adolescents to
disregard gislation, as well as
an underha ded.distortion of the
situation.
While such legislation probably
won't deter all those under 21
from drinking, it willbea strong
dissuasion for many, students
and non-students alike. During
this age period, people explore
ways of coping with stress and
develop recreation preferences.
By it's lack of options, the Ann
Arbor atmosphere steers
undergrads to drinking; getting
blasted is the 'thing to do.'
Council member Susan
Greenfield's endorsement of the
anti-Proposal D campaign.
bespeaks an attempt to gain
popularity among her young
constituency. Her remark about
impending curfews shows her to
be an inflammatory politician. In
this article the Daily tried just too
hard to make a big story out of an
issue with more serious
implications than an adjustment
in campus life.
-Janet Smarr
Lebanon facts
To the Daily: clarified
The American news media has
continuously distorted the facts
about Lebanon. Dr. Tanter's
letter to the Michigan Daily (Oct.
militias have alienated a large
portion of the Lebanese Christian
community as 'a result of the
brutal acts of violence which
they, the militias, committed. To
mention just a few examples: the
militia's cold bloodedly
massacred 35 Christians in the
village of Ehden; about one
month ago, the culminated their
racist harassment campaign
against the Armenian
community by killing several of
those who refused to pay
"protection money" to the
militias. The fact is that many
reporters discovered that many
Christians blame these militias
as much as they do the Syrians,
for the calamities which they
have suffered (Oct. 15, Ann Arbor
News). °These militias were
trained on the same racist
nriinllvc ac Ct ho fl *n;-C ,lan
PLO and keep the syrian force
preocupied by sending all kind
of weapons to the fascist militias
Thus, Israel is using Lebanes
civilians as cannon foder for, it
goodwill geopolitical designs' ii
the Middle East.
" Every conscientious perso
would deplore the indiscriminat'
shelling of civilian areas by th
Syrian forces. But one shoul
keep in mind that the fascis
militias themselves als
extensively bombarded civilial
targets,'moreover, these militias
due to their contempt of humai
life, have located their artillery
installations in civilian areas (t
minimize their losses), thus, the;
are- partly responsible for 'th
high number of civilian deaths
Filially, Lebanon is bound t
remain yin turmoil as lone a