The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 12, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 23, 1980 Page: 22 of 32
thirty two pages : ill. ; page 20 x 14 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
THRESHER ENDORSEMENTS!
The Board of Editors of The Rice Thresher
recommends the following candidates in the
November 4 election.
Carter
Practical politics: A gainst Reagan
U.S. President
The only rational vote in this election is to return
Jimmy Carter to office. The prospects for another four
years of Carter may not seem that good, but the
prospect of four or more years of Ronald Reagan is
even worse.
As much as some of us like Anderson, he has no
realistic chance to win nationally, little chance to win
any states and thereby gain enough electoral votes to
send the race into the House, and absolutely no chance
whatsoever to win in Texas where most Rice votes
count.
What is it we fear about a Reagan presidency? Mostly
his simple answers to complex problems. Reagan is no
Nixon; he's worse. Nixon at least had a reasonably
intelligent view of the world. Reagan does not. His
"us-versus-them" mentality can only lead to disaster.
His call for nuclear superiority over nuclear parity
could lead to a disastrous arms race that could destroy
the world economy, if not the world itself. His
opposition to the bipartisanly-negotiated SALT II
would have similar results. Reagan has yet to
understand that the world is not as simple as it was
when he began making speeches in the fifties. Things
have changed, but Reagan and his rhetoric have not.
Certainly many social programs are in danger
although Reagan has backed off on his earlier threats
to cut most of them. But how do you increase real
defense spending, cut taxes, balance the budget and
keep all those social programs? "You do it with
mirrors," as Anderson said earlier in the campaign.
Reagan's energy plan is simply, "it's there if we just
look for it." Even if it is, although most experts doubt
it, the long-term energy problem is still not solved; it is
merely delayed for 30 or 50 or 100 years. If it is not,
America would eventually plunge into a fuel-shortage
depression from which it would never return. It simply
isn't worth the risk.
Under Reagan, ERA would be a poignant memory;
an anti-abortion amendment, a distinct possibility.
The Supreme Court could become a haven for
reactionary lawyers intent on destroying the social
progress of the past forty years.
There are good things to be said for Carter
however. He has kept us out of war. He did negotiate
the Panama Canal treaties, SALT II, and the Camp
David accords. He has greatly improved relations with
Communist China, realizing the practicality of those
ties in a world with increasingly complex international
relationships.
Domestically, he has given equal opportunity for
women and minorities as no president before him has.
He has given America the beginning of a rational
energy plan. He has helped deteriorating cities pull
themselves out of desperate holes. He has even
deregulated the airline and trucking industries.
His record on the environment has been virtually
impeccable. He has established national parks and
monuments in Alaska to preserve that wilderness and
has enacted tough strip-mining laws to prevent the
land from being ravaged. Contrast that stance to
Reagan's. Reagan thinks most air pollution comes
from trees and Mount St. Helens.
Inflation is undoubtedly Carter's biggest problem.
(The current recession resulted from Carter's attempt
to fight inflation. But inflation isn't entirely Carter's
fault. OPEC price increases and the general world
economic climate are at least partially involved.
On the whole, four years of Carter do not seem all
that bad—especially compared to the alternative.
Andrews
security. He had refused to compromise even on the
most simple items, condemning his own legislation as
well as those of his allies.
Paul is a neo-libertarian, an isolationist and an
ideologue. He has a tendency to elevate principle past
the point of coherence so that he ends up in the same
corner with John Bircher Larry McDonald of Georgia
and other "kooks."
Mike Andrews' biggest asset is that he is not Ron
Paul. He's hawkish on defense (he likes and supports
draft registration), he says he'd vote with the "Texas
bloc" on energy and other matters (i.e. pro-industry),
and he is economically conservative (he supports
deregulation of most things and a balanced budget).
None of which will distinguish him from the rest of the
Texas moderate/conservative club in Washington.
Paul's biggest fault is himself. By not establishing
himself as a flat-out Libertarian, he has lost the support
of even those few that might approve of his votes on
ideological grounds. He is useless as a libertarian
spokesman and worthless as a congressman.
Andrews will give moderates and conservatives an
effective voice in the House, and he is intelligent
enough to listen to liberals and include them in his
campaign. He'll give the voters of District 22 a chance
to be represented for a change.
Temple
The only candidate running
Texas Railroad Commission, expired term
Buddy Temple is running against a ghost. It's
debatable whether Hank Grover is even alive, much
less whether he is actually running for a position on the
Texas Railroad Commission.
Temple himself is a reasonable candidate. He served
four terms in the state legislature, was named to Texas
Monthly's ten best list for one term and was on its
honorable mention list twice. His appeal to lower
energy costs and to represent all the people is
encouraging, although it remains to be seen whether
Temple can actually accomplish those goals in the
corporate-interest maze of the Railroad Commission.
Meanwhile, Grover has continued to hide
throughout the campaign, relying on voters' memory
of his gubernatorial bid to propel him to victory. But
any candidate who does not deem it worthwhile to
even appear before the voters doesn't deserve any
votes at all.
Nugent
Continued competence
Texas Railroad Commission, unexpired term
Jim Nugent has served two good, if not particularly
outstanding, years on the Texas Railroad
Commission. He helped keep utility hikes down
(although those hikes were still passed), helped small
cities deal with the utility companies, and pushed to
enforce laws barring overloaded trucks on Texas
highways. His years in the Texas legislature proved
him a capable leader. (Nugent has the unique
distinction of moving from Texas Monthly's ten worst
list to its ten best list in two terms.)
His opponents have little of substance to offer and
lend no reason for rejecting him. (Although
Hutzelman may have come up with the most
interesting idea of the campaign: doing away with the
commission when its mandate expires in 1983.
Hutzelman, however, has no qualifications for the job
in the meantime.)
On the whole, Nugent is a responsible
commissioner without any serious faults who should
be returned to office.
Jones
Not Ron Paul again
U.S. Representative, District 22
"Ron Paul is a legislative dimwit," Jack Anderson
said in his column a few weeks ago. He has been called
the worst conservative in the House. He is insensitive
to his constituency and appears to believe only in his
cut-the-government-at-all-costs philosophy. Paul has
voted against almost every spending bill including
those for defense appropriations and for social
The Rice Thresher, October 30, 1980, section 2, page 2
A vote for the progressive Killer Bee
State Senate, District 7
Gene Jones is a competent senator with an
intelligent moderate/progressive voting record. He is
well-known for his knowledge of parliamentary rules,
but is best known as a member of the "notorious"
Killer Bees.
Jones' opponent, Mike Richards, is a neo-
conservative with close ties to the right-wing rhetoric
of Phil Crane and Bill Clements. But Richards has
spent most of his campaign publicizing the grand jury
investigation of Jones' alleged misuse of state time and
equipment that Richards' close friends initiated. Jones
admitted that a word-processing machine and some
state time were used for fund-raising purposes without
his knowledge and reimbursed the state for the use.
Richards continues to press the issue, despite the
fact that Jones' offense was, at worst, trivial. In doing
so, Richards has successfully kept Jones on the
defensive, preventing him from concentrating on
Richards and Richards' platform.
Take an example of that platform: Richards stresses
the need for the use of wiretapping to catch suspected
drug dealers. For Richards, drugs are the root of crime
and this law could be an effective force to stop the use
of drugs. Since Jones is against the bill and has voted
against similar bills five times, Richards accuses Jones
of being soft on crime.
What Richards does not seem to realize is that even
if the bill would deter drug dealing (which it wouldn't
since there are other ways to arrange drug transactions
than via telephone), crime would not be stopped and
perhaps would not even be substantially reduced
However, the potential for abuse in it is high.
Richards has no political experience and will be
content to follow the "leadership" of Texas
Republican-god Bill Clements. Clements, however,
has done little for the state and passed little legislation
during his first session—with good reason.
Richards offers no sound reason to unseat a
competent and experienced senator.
Colbert
The best Period.
State Representative, District 80
In a year best characterized by negative votes, Paul
Colbert is one candidate to vote for.
Ironically, Colbert has more legislative experience
than Republican incumbent Dan Downey. Downey,
despite his pretentious utterances concerning the
experience he has gained in office, has yet to serve a
day in the legislature. (The special session for which he
was elected was canceled.) Colbert, on the other hand,
has served six years (twice as long as Downey has been
in Texas) as a researcher for the state legislature and
has been an advisor to the governor on education.
During those six years, Colbert has become
thoroughly familiar with the issues facing the Texas
legislature, and with the way that peculiar institution
works. With that knowledge, Colbert will be able to
effectively persuade his fellow lawmakers to accept his
legislation. Since Colbert already has an in-depth
knowledge of Texas problems and since he has already
gained the respect of the members of the legislature,
Colbert should immediately become a dynamic leader
in the House.
Colbert has already targeted the two most
important issues in the state—education and
taxes—and the two most important issues in the
district—flood control and mass transit—as the
cornerstones of his campaign. In a sentence, he
proposes an increase and a redistribution of state
education funds, a "circuit breaker" tax system for
property taxes (that prevents taxes from going above a
certain level), a regional flood control board, and a
diversion of state funds from highways into mass
transit. To describe Colbert's proposals so briefly,
however, is not to do them justice. Colbert
understands that there are few simple answers to the
problems of this state.
Downey, on the other hand, often seems confused
by the issues. For instance, he has no clear plan to deal
with flooding. He has emphasized the use of the
ineffective Regional Planning Commission and now
proposes that flood control should be paid via
municipal bonds. Those bonds, as Colbert pointed out
Monday night, would shift the burden of payment to
the taxpayers away from the developers whose
building crazes have created the concrete jungle that
has caused Houston's flooding problems.
Downey seems unable to understand how
government works and often slips into platitudes and
irrelevent personal stories (although Colbert has a few
of those, too) to try to grasp the heart of a problem. He
doesn't succeed.
Colbert is by far the best informed and best qualified
candidate. He is probably the best vote of this and
many other election years.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Dees, Richard. The Rice Thresher (Houston, Tex.), Vol. 68, No. 12, Ed. 1 Thursday, October 23, 1980, newspaper, October 23, 1980; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth245452/m1/22/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.