100%

Scanned image of the page. Keyboard directions: use + to zoom in, - to zoom out, arrow keys to pan inside the viewer.

Page Options

Download this Issue

Share

Something wrong?

Something wrong with this page? Report problem.

Rights / Permissions

This collection, digitized in collaboration with the Michigan Daily and the Board for Student Publications, contains materials that are protected by copyright law. Access to these materials is provided for non-profit educational and research purposes. If you use an item from this collection, it is your responsibility to consider the work's copyright status and obtain any required permission.

February 17, 1980 - Image 13

Resource type:
Text
Publication:
The Michigan Daily, 1980-02-17
Note:
This is a tabloid page

Disclaimer: Computer generated plain text may have errors. Read more about this.

_. W -

Page 8-Sunday, February 17, 1980-The Michigan Daily

_W

ip, - . - . - "W

gop
(Continued from Page 4)
Additionally, he finds himself confronted
always with the question of his age. He is 69.
While other world leaders are even older than
that, America has been graced throughout
history with a succession of relatively young
presidents.
In order to combat that sensitive issue,
Reagan has had to beef up his campaign
activities, come down from his mountaintop
isolation, and meet the people. So far, it has
worked. The crowds have come out in huge
numbers like the good old days.
BUSH, HOWEVER, has a more
complex and profound problem. As
a suddenly prominent contender,
Bush has to meet high expectations. With
all the publicity and hoopla surrounding him,
he must either win New Hampshire or come
very close. If not, his campaign may be
perceived as going downhill, a media-
imposed projection that may be a self-
fulfilling prophecy.
Beyond that, now that he is the media's
golden boy of 1980, he will have to measure up
to its standards. Already a story has leaked
out accusing Bush of taking money illegally
from the Nixon slush fund in 1970. The
candidate vigorously denies the charge, but
it's still in the minds of the voters. Since he
was Republican Party chairman during
Watergate, dirt is bound to pour out linking
him to something devious and deceitful. If his
popularity increases-and there's no reason
why it would not-reporters will begin to
investigate him with a finetooth comb.
On the ideological front, Reagan and Bush
are remarkably similar. Both assume
typically hardline conservative stances on
most of the issues-from the twin foreign
crises in Iran and Afghanistan to the plight of
free enterprise here at home. Each favors
loosening controls by federal regulation
authorities, and significantly building up the
country's war resources. Both opposed
SALT and the Panama Canal Treaty. Reagan
and Bush have both given ringing
endorsements of nuclear power.
So in what areas do the two GOP contenders
differ? Simple-style. For years, though
manifested in a mellow and restrained
manner, Reagan's conservatism always
seemed to frighten even his own party
members. Good Lord, they'd say, that man
will plunge us into a nuclear holocaust. And
though the country is in a post-Howard Jarvis
age of economics, and though the rekindled-

distrust toward the Soviet Union has shifted
many Americans to the right, many are still
afraid of the former California governor.
Bush, on the other hand, appeals to both
moderates and extremists-reminding people
of the where-does-Jimmy-Carter-stand
campaign of 1976. No one is quite sure, but so
far they like what Bush is saying, as well as
how he's saying it.
It looks at the moment as if the race may be
a two-man affair, but there are openings for
the others in the field to make a comeback.
Due partly to his belated start and his staff
mishaps, Howard Baker's campaign still
hasn't generated the enthusiasm many
anticipated. A last-minute organizational
blitz save the Tennessean from total-
embarrassment in Iowa, granting him third
place with approximately 14 per cent of the
vote. His campaign, however, is suffering in
New Hampshire, and third place again seems
to be his most optimistic prospect.
Pouring his enormous financial reservoir
into the political waters, John Connally-who
has even resisted a chance to get federal
matching funds-has only received minimal
dividends. He placed fourth in the Iowa
caucuses, and appears headed for the same
fate in New Hampshire. Yet, his chances
hinge on the Deep South, a powerful territory
for the homegrown Texan. He has thrown a
lot of money and time into the March 11 South
Carolina primary. Although he has collected
the endorsements of Sen. Strom Thurmond
and other influential state Republicans,
Reagan is also strong in that region.
The rest of the party's hopefuls appear to be
on the verge of either bowing out completely,
or dramatically reducing their efforts. The
liberal wing's representative, Illinois Con.
John Anderson, scored highly in an Iowan
debate, but has been unable to overcome low
level name recognition, blocking chances to
reap necessary financial reinforcements.
Another congressman from that state,
conservative Phil Crane, has been running
the longest for the job-he announced
formally almost two years ago-but faces too
many conservatives who prefer Reagan.
Kansas Sen. Robert Dole, the party's vice-
presidential nominee in 1976, has run a poor
campaign, and appears to be on his way out.
The latest polls show Reagan and Bush
running almost dead even in New Hampshire.
A victory for either one would not knock the
other one out of the race, but it would provide
important momentum for the victor of the
"Big Mo" as Bush refers to it.

udo

One thing's 'for sure. A seemingly certain
Reagan romp, forecasted for the last two
years, has turned into a two-man tussle
destined to provoke many months of bitter
and tense campaigning. Both men covet the
presidential prize so much.
dems-
(Continued from Page 5)
sympathetic or easy on the previous Kennedy
candidacies, and the new, Watergate-inspired
cynicism was "not this time."
In Iowa, the nation's first caucus state and
the first test of strength of the 1980 season,
Carter made good on his mid-summer pledge
to "whip his ass" if Kennedy challenged him
for the nomination. The president piled up a
resounding 2-to-1 victory over Kennedy and
sent the Massachusetts liberal into a time of
introspection to reassess his candidacy.
The next primary round is New Hampshire.-
It has the potential to make or break the Ken-
nedy challenge. A victory-there, or at the very
least a showing as strong as the Maine vote,
would add momentum and much-needed fun-
ds to what was only last week a faltering
campaign. Such a result could also force the
president out of the Rose Garden and on to the
campaign trail, since allowing Kennedy's
stump charges to go unanswered may even-
tually cost Carter votes.
The unknown factor in the Democratic
political equation is Edmund Brown, the
young governor of California and former Jesuit
seminarian who quotes Zen and professes to
speak for a new generation of political leader-
ship.
His enemies call him an opportunist, but he
is really a pragmatist, taking issue positions
individually on the merits of each, not accor-
ding to any prescribed, pre-defined
ideological umbrella. Thus, he comes out con-
servative on fiscal matters and liberal on
social policies. He wants to balance the
federal budget and further gay rights. He op-
poses draft registration and nuclear power
plants, and he wants to enact protectionist
trade legislation to stop the influx of imported
goods. By taking such divergent issue
positions, it is still unclear whether his long-
shot candidacy will steal votes away from
Kennedy's left or Carter's right. But if he
keeps getting up to 14 percent of the vote, as
he did in Maine's caucus, there is no doubt
that "Jerry" Brown will be a spoiler in a race
that potentially. may become a dead-heat.

l

alums

(Continued from Page 3)
doesn't characterize himself as the
stereotypical alum yelling 'Go Blue' at
all the football games. Posther, on the
other hand, relishes his homecoming
weekend with the family and views
himself as a "goodwill ambassador"
for the University.
Watchers of Michigan alumni have
been able to identify a pattern of tran-
sition between recent graduates and
dollar-contributing, rah-rah alumni.
"You can almost plot it," says Forman.
"It's amazing." He explains that people
are career-oriented immediately after
they leave school, and that they tend to
be absorbed in taking care of them-
selves. That, he says, will usually go on
for about 10 years.
It is true that many University
students today- feel they should not be
giving money to the school once they
become the affluent professionals they
are expected to turn into. "Why should I
give more money to the University? I
already pay enough tuition," said one
student recently. But after all, the dif-
ference between student and graduate.
is just a degree ...
And as years wear on, the commer-
cial aspect enters in. Radock says he
asks long-time graduates, " 'Do you

want it to be as good for your son or
daughter or grandson or gran-
ddaughter, provided they get in?' -
and of course they do," he relates.
"And of course that's a good way to get
at it (the contributions), because it's a
self-interest type of thing."
Apart from financial contributions
and recruitment of students, alumni
also assist the University in other ways.
They are viewed as a constituency of
the University in much the same wy
students are. During last year's
presidential search, an alumni group
advised the Regents in selection under
the same terms as did a group a faculty
members and a group-of students. "As
students play a role in the University,
so do former students," Forman says.
"You let them know you're interested
in more than just their dollars, that
you're interested in their viewpoint,
how they feel."
Indeed, when a project like the selec-
tion of a new University president
comes along, alumni are just as curious
and just as skeptical as many faculty
members and students.
It's that rosy glow associated with the
University and the experiences and
maturation gained here that prompts
even those alumni who've migrated

West, or abroad, to make the trek to
Ann Arbor for at least one football
weekend.
The Pretzel Bell, Drake's, and Cot-
tage Inn are the three most frequently
recalled alumni haunts of the last
generation. On football Saturdays,
those restaurants are extra crowded
due to the influx of nostalgic alums.
They sit around and relive their first
college beer, and they talk about their
old professors and the friends they
made in the fraternity, sorority, or
dormitory.

But Kaplan believes the people who
return to Ann Arbor for fall Saturdays
simply enjoy football games; he says
they do not necessarily want to relive
their college years. "You can't go
back," he says. "There's just no way
you can duplicate the memories I have
from 1951-55."
"When I was in school, I'd see the
funny yellow and blue - it was really
kind of squaresville - people were
being obnoxious alumni," says Posther.
"Now when I come back, well, I guess
I'm really that way now. But I'm not
ashamed."

Slugging it out

.-unedaig
Co-editors

in New Hampshire

Elisa Isaacson

RJ Smith

A readymade
best-seller
Supplement to The Michigan Daily

The story of Of q
the 'U's alums quar
Ann Arbor, Michigan-Sunday, February 17, 1980

uality
ter-po

Cover collage by Reggie Sandman.

Back to Top

© 2020 Regents of the University of Michigan