1972-11-03

              Trash Piles Gulp Poll

By Dick Marnach and Joe Young

On Oct. 25, the Record staff randomly shoved presidential questionnaires into the mail boxes of 500 St. John's students. Three-fourths of these Johnnies dropped their questionnaires into the trash; the remainder dropped them into the Campus Mail.

Seventy percent of the 125 students who completed the questionnaire will vote for McGovern next Tuesday; 27 percent will vote Nixon; and three percent are either undecided or voting for a minor candidate.

Better than two-thirds of the McGovern supporters do not believe, however, that he can defeat Nixon. Thirty of these 125 survey-returners have participated this past year in organized political campaigning.

Many students justified their votes with the familiar "lesser of two evils" argument. One cynical student wrote, "Given the choice between a crook and a fool, I'll take the crook (Nixon) anytime."

Non-Student Poll

Four days ago, several non-students were asked, "Who are you voting for, and why?" Their replies are listed below:

Robert Weber, government: "McGovern—I'm a 'machine democrat*."

Frank Warwick, security: "George Wallace, because he cares about what's going on at home, and tells the truth."

Bill Van Cleve, registrar: McGovern—reason withheld.

Paul E. Tix (pol-i-tics?), economics : "My first three choices are 1) Hubert Humphrey, 2) Nelson Rockefeller, and 3) Henry Kissinger. But, of the major candidates, I cannot in good conscience vote for Nixon, and therefore will vote for McGovern."

O. William Perlmutter, academic dean; . "I'll vote for McGovern-Shriver—I'm especially enthusiastic about Shriver being on the ticket."

Brian Millette, activities director: "McGovern is the lesser of two evils —I would never vote for Nixon."

Jerry Mead, food service director: "I'm voting for McGovern. Nixon's ending of the war at this late date was  a purely political move.  His

catering to big business and tax increases also disgusts me."

Frank Rioux, chemistry: Richard Nixon—"His foreign policy will provide permanent peace."

Aidan McCall, dean of students: not decided yet, but definitely not Nixon.

Orland Jellum, physical plant manager: "I'll vote for Nixon, although he's ending the war just for a political advantage; I can't build him up at all. Meanwhile, McGovern is using underslinging dirty-talk. Politics, to me, is rotten."

Lee Hanley, public information director: "...McGovern, not only because he's a good, decent man, but also because of the alternative."

Joseph Ebacher, French: ".. .McGovern because 1) he's a very honest man, and 2) I'm definitely not voting for Nixon."

Mark Hughes, chemistry: McGovern, the lesser of two evils.

Michael Blecker, SJU president: "I haven't made up my mind yet; there is a possibility that I may write in."

Louis Blenkner, English-housing officer: "I'd rather shoot myself than vote for Nixon."

The Record

STUDENT PUBLICATION OF ST. JOHN'S UNIVERSITY

Vol. 85

Collegeville, MN. 56321, November 3, 1972

No. 10

Undergraduate Student Government (USG): Underhanded Grumbling Humbug (UGH)

By Joe Young

"Perhaps you, my fellow members, shall follow me in resignation as the first step toward a viable system of government. The other course rests in following our "captain," who has lashed himself to our governmental rudder and steers us beyond absurdity."

As yet, none of this year's Undergraduate Student Government's members have accepted this invitation to resign. The proposal appeared in former vice-president Bob Kiefer's Oct. 18th letter of resignation from the USG. Kiefer claims that the USG serves "neither the students nor St. John's at large. It serves no purpose,

it is inept, and it shall no longer count me among its farcical members."

"Mickey Mouse"

It is surprising that other members have not followed Kiefer's example. It is obvious that the Sunday night USG sessions are both fruitless and unenjoyable. Members openly admit the futility of their "government": "It's obvious that this is just Mickey Mouse,"—"We are hopelessly entangled in a quagmire,"—"We're pretty fouled up," and "Like someone said before, this is Mickey Mouse." That final quote comes from Julian Whitley, president of this Undergraduate Student Quagmire.

The 'Record' camera catches USG President Whitley (the one smoking a pencil) daydreaming about

Chuck Berry's boogie.

Pete Lambert's Bullhorn Vs. Don Kelly's Donkey Bray

"Four More Years" was submitted by Pete Lambert, SJU coordinator of the College Republicans.

"No More Tears" was written by Don Kelly, Chairman of St. John's Citizens for McGovern.

Four More Years

By this time each voter is pretty well set in his or her presidential choice. My purpose in this piece is merely to explain my position as a Republican.

As Jerry Kosanovich put it, "Trying to get a Republican view across at St. John's campus is like negotiating for peace by standing in the middle of the DMZ with a bullhorn and reciting our peace plank."

Granted, we are a minority—but we do exist. We are not loud, but we are working to accomplish our goals. We the College Republicans differ on how many things should be done. Yet, we all agree that Republicanism is the best political philosophy. Why do we feel this way? I will answer this question by replying to some other questions we are frequently asked:

Does the Republican Party favor big business'! Someone must befriend business; the Democrats certainly haven't done so. They favor labor and seem to forget that without big business, organized labor would cease to exist. An example of what happens under Democratic leadership is right here in Minne-

sota; big business is leaving. The labor market is swamped—there are no jobs. Personal taxes are skyrocketing.

How has the Republican Party affected the national economy! Historically, Republican administrations have been economically stable. "Ah," you may say, "what about Hoover?" To this I say, "Look what followed him!"

What is the foundation of the Republican Party? As I see it, the Constitution. Nowhere in federal or state constitutions can we find the formation of a democracy. The founding fathers were afraid of a democratic mob rule. We are a Republic; a government (not a McGovernment) of law!

How do you feel about Richard Nixon? FOUR MORE YEARS!!!

No More Tears

The majority of the St. John's community will vote Democratically next Tuesday. Why? This question is simply answered by telling the truth.

Nixon was successful in 1968 because he claimed to have a secret plan to end the war. Enough people believed him to make him their president. He also promised to bring us together, end inflation, fight pollution, and make the United States a land loaded with peace and prosperity. During the Democratic canvass of our campus a few students felt

that Nixon hadn't done a bad job. This view is either the result of poor judgment or pure cynicism. Regardless, it must be dispelled point by point.

1. Why did it take Nixon four years to end the war?

Sure, he brought home most of the troops. Unfortunately, it took him so long that over 20,000 men died during his presidency. Richard Nixon did more bombing during his term than was done during all of World War II. He nearly bombed a country out of existence.

2.  Has Richard Nixon brought us together?

In 1968, Nixon promised to reunite a divided nation. A few months after his inauguration, terms such as "Southern strategy" and "Middle Americans" crept into our language. Remember Carswell and Haynes-worth? If the Democratic Senate had not objected, one of these embodiments of bigoted Nixonian mediocrity would be sitting now on the Supreme Court.

3.   Has   Richard   Nixon   created prosperity?

How many of you had a good job this past summer (or any job at alt)? How many of you had a summer job in 1969? I'll wager that a lot more of you would say no today than three or four years ago.

Under Nixon's economic game plan, inflation was to be stifled by reducing the number of jobs. With

less employment there would be less demand and inflation would decrease. Instead, stagflation, a stagnant economy with inflation resulted.

4. Has Richard Nixon begun to clean up the environment?

President Nixon recently vetoed a large anti-pollution bill. The Democratic Congress passed the bill over his veto. Why this veto? Our frugal President deemed it necessary in order to hold down spending.

It is interesting to note what Nixon considers as an inflationary expendir ture. The ABM and Lockheed loans are not inflationary expenditures, whereas a S2.20 minimum wage, education, and pollution control are considered inflationary by the President.

Many of you are wary of McGov-ern's proposals; but his plans for welfare reform, taxation and defense should be interpreted as long-term goals to set point this country in the right direction. With a McGovern administration the millionaire and big corporation will pay the taxes they have evaded for years, pollution will be attacked, and the drug dilemma will be assaulted at its source— in the poppy fields of China and Indochina.

At the time of the Democratic canvass, 60 percent of you were cither leaning or sure to vote for the Senator from South Dakota; 20 percent were undecided. I ask all of you to vote. You can vote at St. John's without registering.

Most USG members blame Whitley for the Government's incompetence. They claim that because he receives no salary, he is not motivated to do the work required of the position.

A Boogie-booking President

A part of the problem stems from how Whitley became president. In last year's elections the USG was rocked by near abolition. However, when Abolishionist President John Thavis relinquished his post, as the Abolition motion failed to pass, the presidential bombshell fell squarely into then-Vice-president Whitley's lap.

Whitley should have refused the presidency, along with its penny-a-month salary. The Abolishionists, by cutting USG officers' salaries, had hoped to make the USG presidency so uninviting that no one would want it, which in effect would abolish the USG. They had not anticipated, however, the likes of Julian Whitley.

Julian saw the presidency as a golden opportunity for him to improve the social climate of the campus, i.e., to revive rock-and-roll music from the Fifties era (Boogie Week), and to book big-time entertainment at Collegeville regardless of cost. At a recent USG meeting, Whitley revealed plans for an upcoming Sha-Na-Na Weekend. He nearly succeeded in booking Chuck Berry for the homecoming concert last month. When it comes to social activities, Whitley's philosophy is: "the money is there—why not use it?"

Free Coffee

Meanwhile, the other 16 members of the USG have, unlike Kiefer, apparently decided to stick it out until the February elections. In order to quell their bickering and keep the meetings running smoothly, Whitley appointed Steve Watson as Parliamentarian at last Sunday's meeting. Watson, sitting at Whitley's right, rattles off Roberts Rules of Order in

a dispassionate monotone. Watson's voice subdues argumentation, not so much by its content (which nobody can follow), but by its tendency to put the members to sleep.

Also last Sunday, the USG picked Kim Culp, a former representative-at-large, to fill the vice-presidential vacancy left by Kiefer. Culp, one of the more verbal members of the USG, wears a hooded gray St. John's sweat parka to most meetings, and at times behaves like a spectator at a poorly officiated football game. He, and Whitley form an unlikely pau\

Watch this well-oiled SJU governmental machine in the Alumni Lounge this Sunday at 7 p.m. There is free coffee at each meeting.