Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Download Folder

0 items

Houston Breakthrough, November 1980
Page 10
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Breakthrough, November 1980 - Page 10. November 1980. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. December 28, 2014. http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/3680/show/3661.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

(November 1980). Houston Breakthrough, November 1980 - Page 10. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/3680/show/3661

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Houston Breakthrough, November 1980 - Page 10, November 1980, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed December 28, 2014, http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/3680/show/3661.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Houston Breakthrough, November 1980
Publisher Breakthrough Publishing Co.
Date November 1980
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women
  • Texas
  • Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
Subject.Geographic (TGN)
  • Houston, Texas
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Physical Description 28 page periodical
Type (DCMI)
  • Text
  • Image
Format (IMT)
  • image/jpeg
Original Item Location HQ1101 .B74
Original Item URL http://library.uh.edu/record=b2332724~S11
Digital Collection Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters
Digital Collection URL http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist
Repository Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries
Repository URL http://info.lib.uh.edu/about/campus-libraries-collections/special-collections
Use and Reproduction Educational use only, no other permissions given. Copyright to this resource is held by the content creator, author, artist or other entity, and is provided here for educational purposes only. It may not be reproduced or distributed in any format without written permission of the copyright owner. For more information please see UH Digital Library Fair Use policy on the UH Digital Library About page.
File name index.cpd
Item Description
Title Page 10
File name femin_201109_565h.jpg
Transcript CAMPAIGN '80 ! ! PRESIDENTIAL **- ANDERSON 'Despite the obstacles, his candidacy will not go away. -BY FRANCES FARENTHOLD- I am voting for John Anderson for president. I consider him the superior candidate. And I am endorsing his candidacy because I value my vote and, ultimately, it is a free vote focused on his election and in support of a candidate. I do not prejudge other voters or predict outcomes. And I reject the manipulation of my vote by strategists in my own political party whether the rationale is fear, i. e. of Reagan or gratitude, i. e. appointments of women by Carter. To me, John Anderson is talking sense to the American people. He proposes constructive measures addressing the issues of inflation and energy and forcefully promotes the rights of women. John Anderson is the only major candidate that is not a saber rattler. He opposes the extravagant and mindless MX missile and the first strike philosophy that the other two candidates approve. He actually says that there should be exacting standards of efficiency and accountability for defense expenditures and, most importantly, he would take the necessary steps to complete the Salt II process and, therby, lay the groundwork for Salt III. In this election year I have traveled many miles to arrive at an endorsement of John Anderson. I first heard John Anderson in the Iowa debates and listened. I thought what judgement the Republican Party would demonstrate by having him on the ticket. But that was not to be. To me, he was someone sensible but distant — distant, for I am a lifelong Democrat that has been committed to working within the Democratic Party. In the past, my choices for Democratic presidential nominees were not always the ones selected — Adlai Stevenson in 1952 and Eugene McCarthy in 1968, but so be it. I supported the party nominees freely and openly: a Democrat was preferable to a Republican because a Democratic nominee would reflect the philosophy and advocate the programs of the Democratic Party. Almost four years of a Carter administration have altered my perspective. I do not feel any obligation to the present Democratic nominee on the basis of party affiliation. For Carter repudiated the 1976 platform and he swallowed significant additions to the 1980 platform by forced feeding. In other words, his commitment to party platforms are election devices. A colleague of mine in the Texas legislature once told me that the public has a week mind. Week. As I observed example after example of Carter's public in- eptness, I determined that whatever in tervened I would not have a "week mind." The accumulations of his record were such that I could not defend it and felt that based on his own record a second term should be denied him. I had come to this conclusion by the summer of 1979 and there I stand today. Without John Anderson's candidacy, I would have taken a sabbatical from the electoral process in 1980. With him in the race, I take a sabbatical from the Democratic Party. Despite the obstacles, his candidacy will not go away. The obstacles have included the quasi official status of the two major parties, the presidential efforts to denigrate the candidacy, party expenditures to keep him off the ballot and others. Because Anderson's candidacy was not moribund by Labor Day, the proposition now emphasized is that a vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan. Of late, the argument has been carried a step further to terrify liberals with the specture of Reagan Supreme Court appointees. Suffice to say, there is a Senate Judiciary Committee and a U. S. Senate. My commitment to John Anderson is reinforced by his advocacy of feminism. Yesterday and today, it involved grave political risk for office holders or candidates to stand resolute on feminist issues. Why? Because opponents of equality are persistent and supporters are frequently in disarray and other loyalties pull on feminists. John Anderson has not only used the rhetoric of equal rights, he has consistently voted accordingly. He voted for the extension of the ERA time-limit. And on the most basic feminist issue he has voted consistently for federal funding of abortions for poor women. It has been a high risk performance and I intend to respond to it with my vote. We have an unabashed feminist in John Anderson who is the superior candidate who has stepped forward in a year of leadership crisis and in a year when the two major parties have floundered and offered the electorate two inadequate candidates. And I ask what feminists are doing about it? Are we prepared for such a phenomena? Are our minds sufficiently free of the two party tradition? Women have not yet shown a willingness to abandon party ranks and traditional class loyalties. We are mired in our traditions of timidity. We will only be a constituency and be recognized as one when we vote as one. Look again at our choices and the consequences if we don't in this wearisome political year cut loose from our political traditions. If the many Republican women who support the ERA consider it more important to elect the Republican nominee than the set-back such an election constitutes to the women's movement, this will be an indication that the proponents of equality manifest their irritation in rhetoric alone. As the alternative, I ask is Carter worthy of feminist support? Some will argue that Carter's lack of commitment has been a detriment to the ratification of ERA. Or is it, as I suggest, one more example of his ineptness? Typically, the White House announced less than three weeks before the election that there would be a reorganization of the White House staff to push the ERA efforts. One indeed would have to have a "week mind" to CARTER forget his words in the summer of 1977 after the Supreme Court decision against federal medicaid for non-therapeutic abortion: "There are many things in life that are not fair, that wealthy people can afford that poor people cannot." Need I remind feminists of the freeze treatment directed toward Midge Costanza and the crude dismissal of Bella Abzug. Carter has made some worthy appointments of women. Women's groups have been better organized to push for these appointments. Welcome as these appointments are for me, they do not create the burden of undying gratitude. Appointments have been the traditional pattern to lock-in minority support. The pattern is to finess the basic issues and obligate loyalty by appointments. For several years I have spoken of the 20th Century somen's movement and compared it to the 19th, bemoaning our timidity, our hesitancy, our unwillingness to step out of line and contrasted it with the stalwartness and tenacity of our fore- mothers and their willingness to be conspicuous in their cause. I consider the 1980 election a glorious opportunity for us to be worthy decendents of our foremothers, to utilize the 19th Amendment to forcefully move toward the 27th Amendment by voting for John Anderson. Frances "Sissy" Farenthold is a former member of the Texas House of Representatives and a former president of Wells College She was a U. S. vice-presidential candidate in 1972 and is now an attorney in private practice in Houston. "Progressives can vote for Carter. Or they can help elect Reagan." -BY CHANDLER DAVIDSON- "The Democratic Party is one of privilege and special interest, living off the bounty of the federal government. It's the Democratic Party supporters who are on the receiving end of everything from food stamps to government jobs, all paid for by hard-working taxpayers . . . The Republican Party is the party of producers and working people of this country." - John Connally addressing the 1980 National Republican convention "Most Republican leaders have bitterly fought and blocked the forward surge of average men and women in their pursuit of happiness. Let us not be deluded that overnight these leaders have suddenly become friends of average men and women. You know, very few of us are that gullible." —Edward Kennedy quoting FDR at the 1980 National Democratic convention Barring improbabilities, one of two men will be elected president as a result of the November election: Jimmy Carter or Ronald Reagan. This is true even if the contest is thrown into the House of Representatives. So the question of who to vote for (or whether to vote at all) reduces very simply to this: Who do you want in the White House next January. Carter . . . or Reagan? Progressives, liberals and moderates therefore have a painfully narrow set of options Nov. 4. They can vote for Carter. Or they can help elect Reagan. There is no third option. There are simply various ways of helping elect Reagan. The most straightforward one is to vote for him. Another is to vote for a third party candidate. Or one can refuse to vote. All of these actions will help put Reagan over the top. This is not big news, but I belabor the point because otherwise astute people still talk as though John Anderson had a chance. Of course, in a strictly mathematical sense he does. But it isn't great enough to risk electing Reagan by voting Anderson, whose true practical chances are exceedingly remote. Actually, there are three currently fashionable arguments that some progressives and moderates advance against voting for Carter. The first is that Anderson does have a fighting chance, and he is so superior to Carter that the risk of electing Reagan by 10 HOUSTON BREAKTHROUGH