Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Download Folder

0 items

Houston Breakthrough, May 1980
Pages 16 and 17
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Houston Breakthrough, May 1980 - Pages 16 and 17. May 1980. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. September 1, 2015. http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/5534/show/5518.

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.

(May 1980). Houston Breakthrough, May 1980 - Pages 16 and 17. Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters. Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/5534/show/5518

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, May 1980 - Pages 16 and 17, May 1980, Houston and Texas Feminist and Lesbian Newsletters, Special Collections, University of Houston Libraries, accessed September 1, 2015, http://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/feminist/item/5534/show/5518.

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, May 1980
Publisher Breakthrough Publishing Co.
Date May 1980
Subject.Topical (LCSH)
  • Women
  • Periodicals
  • Feminism--United States--Periodicals
  • Newsletters
Subject.Geographic (TGN)
  • Houston, Texas
Genre (AAT)
  • periodicals
Language English
Physical Description 32 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 Pages 16 and 17
File Name femin_201109_560ao.JPG
Transcript The Republicans George Bush carried three of his "home states"—Maine, Connecticut and Massachusetts—in this year's national Republican primaries, but even though he lives in Houston, Texas may be his toughest campaign-to-win yet. Ronald Reagan took a clean sweep of Texas delegates from President Ford in the 1976 primary. There is nothing to indicate any of that support has diminished in four years. And John Connally didn't help matters any, when the former Texas governor withdrew from the race and threw his support to Reagan. There is no doubt about it, Bush is running in Reagan territory. Reagan isn't Bush's only obstacle to victory. Even though they are the only two candidates on the Republican presidential ballot, it is likely that some Republican voters and cross-over Democrats will vote "uncommitted" which is the only way to register a vote for Congressman John Anderson. Unlike the Democratic primary's straw poll, delegate selection for the 1980 Republican Texas primary is a winner-take- all system. With this method "it would be politically dumb to vote uncommitted with the intention of showing support for John Anderson," said Chase Untermeyer, a Texas State Representative and part- time staff assistant to George Bush. A vote for Anderson is a vote for Reagan in Untermeyer's view. "Any uncommitted delegates to the Republican National Convention would be selected at the state convention which will more than likely be Reagan supporters, therefore making every vote for uncommitted a vote for Reagan," he emphasized. In the Texas Republican presidential primary it is the actual vote which decides the selection of the 80 Texas delegates to the Republican National Convention. These votes will be tabulated in each of the 24 congressional districts. Each district will choose three delegates and three alternates, plus eight at-large delegates will be chosen from the state. Harris County is made up of three entire congressional districts plus parts of two which cross county lines. The selection system dictates that the candidate with the most votes earns all three delegates. Only in the case of a large uncommitted vote would this fact change. The spokesperson at Bush headquarters said it was about as likely as a "snowball in hell." John Anderson has no organized support in Harris County and has only a small organization in Texas which is centered in Austin. It seems that any strategy he employs, either to capture the Repu- lican uncommitted vote or to run as an independent (he is expected to announce his third party candidacy after the Pennsylvania primary) would only accomplish what he is trying to prevent, a win for Reagan. Columnist Carl Rowan recently wrote that Anderson was "dreaming" of a situation in which Carter and Reagan wrapped George Bush brings his campaign to Texas. John Anderson plans to run as an independent. BUSH IN TEXAS Native son running in Reagan country THE OTHER GUY Declaration of Independence BY JANE ARMSTRONG BY JAMES YEAGER up the nomination but where polls showed neither had popular support. "Thirty per cent for Carter, 30 per cent for Reagan and Anderson rides forth on a horse whiter than his own hair shouting, '40 per cent prefer me!' " He predicts the chances of Anderson winning the presidency are slim and as a "spoiler" he would "deliver Ronald Reagan to the Oval Office." Rowan feels Anderson should drop out of the race and throw his support to Edward Kennedy "on grounds that the Massachusetts senator's ideas and convictions are closer to his than are those of Reagan" or Carter. Anderson has been a "spoiler" for the Bush candidacy, but Bush supporters here are also counting on uncommitted delegates to help the Bush candidacy at the national convention in August. Ceci Cole, national assistant director of communications of the Bush campaign explained that delegates from Texas attending the Republican National Convention are bound to a particualr candidate. "However, 48 per cent of the delegates at the national convention will be 'unbound' because most states require no commitment of delegates, making a firm national count of delegate support for either candidate speculative." On the issues, one survey conducted by the Republican Women's Task Force (RWTF) shows Anderson and Bush in agreement on most of their issues. Both support the ERA, while Reagan is known to oppose it. Anderson opposes allowing states to rescind their ratification of the ERA, Reagan appears to support recission and Bush did not answer the question. Anderson and Bush support public funding of family planning programs, support the registration of women if the draft is reinstated and would consider a woman as their vice presidential running mate. Reagan would consider a woman running mate but did not answer the other questions. Anderson and Bush oppose a federal constitutional ban on abortion; however, Bush would allow a constitutional amendment allowing states to regulate abortions within state boundaries. Reagan supports a constitutional amendment banning abortions. When asked how they would ensure increased appointments of women to high positions within the federal government, Anderson said he wants the RWTF to advise his transition team. Bush responded that he would "insist that the names of women and minority^candidates be included in each list of recommendations for nominees for appointments in my administration." No answer from Reagan was published. The winner-take-all in Texas' Republican presidential primary will take 80 delegates to the national convention. Jane Armstrong has a BS in Journalism from the University of Tennessee and is a graduate student in accounting at UH. Go ahead and run as an independent. Sure, there'll be a few problems. Not with getting elected: that's impossible. But running itself has pitfalls which beset only independent presidential candidates. In the presidential election of 1976 Gene McCarthy ran as an independent. He had issues which nobody else talked about; he was known as a man of integrity, wit and. common sense; he was telegenic and well-respected by the press. Yet, after a year and a half of work, he got on the ballot in 29 states and received 756,691 votes (including write- ins) or one percent of the total. Based on McCarthy's 1976 experiences, a few safe predictions can be made about how Anderson will be treated. First of all, there won't be much money. People are used to giving to party primary campaigns but not to helping independents. Despite the optimistic predictions of his direct-mail fundraisers that they can raise $12 million by November, Anderson would do well to raise as much as 15 percent of the $30 million each party candidate will have. And what little Anderson gets won't be matched by federal funds. The Federal Elections Commission's individual contribution limits will apply, but not the countervailing subsidies. They will remain the privilege of the established parties. The only way an independent can receive subsidy funds is to garner more than five percent of the November vote, in which case his expenses will be audited and an undetermined percentage paid long after the campaign is over. Being gladly paid in March for a campaign hamburger in October is of no great use. Since money is how the press keeps score of who is a "serious" candidate and Anderson won't have much, he can expect that reporters who wrote respectfully of him as a Republican will dismiss him-when they do not chide him-as an independent. This has already begun. Network news coverage will decline in frequency, and he will find himself excluded from any debates, even those organized under supposedly nonpartisan auspices, and from most national interview programs. If McCarthy's '76 experience is any guide, Anderson can't expect a fair shake from the nationally published polls. In 76, one poll consistently omitted the independent's name altogether; another included it but wouldn't print the data; a third made you add, subtract and turn to a previous page to discover the percentage the independent had. As soon as Anderson declines from the lofty heights of 20 percent favorable ratings, he can expect to be included only every other time, or every third time, a poll is published. People who might otherwise be expected to support Anderson will discover an almost theological attachment to the two-party system and manifest an almost pathological avoidance of him. Various former supporters will find themselves offered jobs with Anderson's opponents and will be provided a forum to speak out against him. They may take out an ad in a national magazine, or they may simply use old mailing lists to send a letter to other former supporters, denouncing his candidacy and suggesting that Anderson is less than a full-blooded American for running for president outside the sacred confines of the two-party system. Gaining ballot access will be harder, and more confusing, than anything John Anderson has ever done in his life. State officials will consider themselves justified not only in making scornful remarks about his campaign among themselves and to the media, but in using any means to frustrate his efforts to file sufficient petition signatures for ballot placement. His petitioners will be harassed by local authorities. The petitions themselves will be scrutinized with the fervor normally reserved for poring over patronage lists. States will manage to strike off almost as many signatures as they certify. But the biggest disappointment will be the shift in the focus of such muted media attention as will be forthcoming. The story will be not Anderson's programs, but Anderson's problems. Reporters who can't get a substantive story printed will succeed in announcing the weekly total of states in which Anderson gets ballot access. The issues Anderson wishes to raise will be obscured by the complexities of the process of raising them. Much of his time and that of his staff will be spent in explaining the differences between seeking a party nomination and gaining independent ballot placement. Many of these explanations will be in vain. There is, in short, a tremendous amount of institutional hostility to the very idea of an independent candidacy which in turn feeds the notion that you shouldn't "waste" a vote on a dark horse candidate (as though votes were bets and politics were sport). Bipartisan obstructionism will haunt Anderson more as election day approaches, as both parties tell their supporters that a vote for Anderson is really a vote for the opposition. Apparently the only thing the Democratic and Republican parties agree on is that no one ought to be permitted to challenge for the presidency except each other. A modern independent candidacy has one thing going for it: the votes it gets are cheap. In 1976 McCarthy spent less than 80 cents per vote. Reagan and Carter's primary spending is already well over that. The people may be ready to vote for an independent, but the parties aren't ready to let them; and the media aren't ready to report the story anyway. After practicing on McCarthy in 76 and perhaps Anderson in '80, maybe by 1984 (when we may need it) an independent can get a fair shot. James Yeager has a special knowledge of the tribulations facing John Anderson as an independent presidential candidate. He was press secretary to Gene McCarthy in 1976. 16 HOUSTON BREAKTHROUGH MAY 1980 17