Washington
By ROBERT MACKAY

Anderson's woes

A VETERAN political reporter in Washington, who also happens to be a longtime liberal and Democrat, donated money to John Anderson's campaign for the Republican presidential nomination and also voted for him in the primary. But, after the Republican and Democratic national conventions she said she was going to vote for President Carter in November. Why the change?

"Because I don't want that (expletive) Reagan to be president," she said. "There's no way Anderson is going to win and if I vote for him, Reagan might get in. So I'm voting for Carter, not because I like that little twerp, mind you, but because I want to see Reagan lose."

Her attitude certainly wasn't unique. Many people who were philosophically close to Anderson expressed the same sentiment — a vote for Anderson might put Ronald Reagan in the White House. It is a major problem that Anderson campaign officials have been unable to overcome: how to convince voters that Anderson could win and that they will not be wasting their votes.

The journalist quoted above said her loyalty switched from Anderson to Carter during the Democratic National Convention when Sen. Edward Kennedy urged Democrats to work together to defeat Reagan. That highlights another problem for the Anderson independent candidacy. Anderson has been forced to spend months getting enough signatures on petitions to get his name on ballots in various states, while the Democratic and Republican parties held conventions that were nationally televised and gave their nominees a boost into the fall campaign. Anderson himself spent most of the summer just trying to get his popularity ratings up to where they were before the two conventions.

Another negative factor has been Anderson's inability to find a big-name Democrat to become his running mate, someone who would add some diversity and spark to the ticket. Former Gov. Patrick Lucey may be a household name in Wisconsin, but he is not known in other parts of the country and he is not a dynamic speaker. He is an unemployed politician from a state which borders Illinois and which, like Anderson himself, considered somewhat progressive and liberal. Lucey probably didn't hurt the ticket, but he didn't add much to it either.

Also, Anderson, who boasted throughout the campaign of "the Anderson difference," issued a national unity platform that was far from dramatic, including stands Anderson has taken during his long career in Congress, and didn't give him the boost he was looking for.

Anderson did get some much needed nationwide exposure in the League of Women Voters' debate between presidential candidates held September 21 in Baltimore. In the debate Anderson emphasized the differences between himself and Ronald Reagan, and both disagreed with Jimmy Carter, who was conspicuously absent. (Carter was willing to debate Reagan but refused to debate independent candidate Anderson.) The debate enabled Anderson to plead his case that he is a viable independent candidate and not a spoiler. And Carter's refusal to participate irritated many voters, but whether that will help Anderson is unknown.

One thing is clear. The electorate is resolutely unenthusiastic. In a September 18 speech in Springfield, pollster George Gallup Jr. said that 6 out of 10 voters are still undecided on who they want for president. Lukewarm on both Reagan and Carter, voters are not adverse to the idea of a third party. Anderson's problem, apparently, is that he is perceived as being more liberal than the Democrats.

In all likelihood, it will be former congressman John Anderson who returns to Rockford after the election in November. He will, however, be a former congressman who left Washington with more of a bang than when he first arrived 20 years ago.

Democrats who will be returning to Illinois are Sen. Adlai Stevenson and Rep. Morgan Murphy of the 2nd District, who have retired, and Rep. Bennett Stewart of the 1st District, who was defeated in the Democratic primary in March. The other members of the House are seeking reelection.

Because of his presidential campaign, Anderson had the worst attendance record of any Republican member of the House in 1979 and 1980. Of 672 votes recorded in the House in 1979, Anderson had a 28 percent attendance rate.

Since this is election month, here are the other members of the Illinois congressional delegation and their attendance rates, listed in order of district: 1. Bennett Stewart (D., Chicago), 89 percent; 2. Morgan Murphy (D., Chicago), 71; 3. Martin Russo (D., Oak Lawn); 88; 4. Edward Derwinski (R., Palos Heights), 97; 5. John Fary (D., Chicago), 91; 6. Henry Hyde (R., Oak Park), 94; 7. Cardiss Collins (D., Chicago), 80; 8. Dan Rostenkowski (D., Chicago), 84; 9. Sidney Yates (D., Chicago), 95; 10. Abner Mikva (D., Evanston), 78 (resigned Sept. 26, 1979); 11. Frank Annunzio (D., Chicago), 98; 12. Philip Crane (R., Arlington Heights), 54; 13. Robert McClory (R., Waukegan), 89; 14. John Erlenborn (R., Wheaton), 92; 15. Tom Corcoran (R., Ottawa), 97; 16. John Anderson (R., Rockford), 28; 17. George O'Brien (R., Joliet), 85; 18. Robert Michel (R., Peoria), 88; 19. Tom Railsback (R., Rock Island), 88; 20. Paul Findley (R., Springfield), 93; 21. Edward Madigan (R., Champaign), 92; 22. Daniel Crane (R., Danville), 88; 23. Melvin Price (D., East St. Louis), 92; 24. Paul Simon (D., Carbondale), 89.

Collins, Fary, Murphy and Stewart were absent a day or more because of illness, or death or illness in the family. Philip Crane was also campaigning for president. John Porter, who replaced Mikva in the 10th District, was averaging at least 90 percent attendance during this congressional session.

November 1980/Illinois Issues/33