4A - The Michigan Daily - Wednesday, October 4, 2006
1
DONN M. FRESARD
Editor in Chief
EMiLY BEAM
EMILYBEAM JEFFREY BLOOMER
CHRISTOPHER ZBROZEK
Editorial Page Editors Managing Editor
EDITED AND MANAGED BY STUDENTS AT
THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN SINCE 1890
413 E. HURON
ANN ARBOR, MI 48104
tothedaily@michigandaily.com
OPINION
NOTABLE QUOTABLE
My husband
was going to
become a
Catholic priest,
but then
we met."
- Former beauty queen and
current Michigan Gov. Jennifer
Granholm, speaking during Mon-
day night's gubernatorial debate.
TS
KIM LEUNG THE T
f E
t
.
,,
fit
,--
,$ - .
-
4
Elc
Avoiding a debate
DeVos hopes voters won't notice his social view
I
D uringelectionseasontheJeffersonian
ideal of a representative government
wisely chosen by an involved and
informed populace seems to serve primarily
as an ironic reminder of what our democ-
racy isn't. The gap between the storyline we
learn in civics lessons and the reality of the
typical campaign was fully evident Monday
night, when Gov. Jennifer Granholm and her
Republican challenger, Dick DeVos, debated
for the first time. By any measure, it's a bad
sign when a debate begins with the candi-
dates attacking each other for the distortions
and omissions in their 30-second TV ads.
During the debate, DeVos repeatedly
described Granholm's alleged misstatements
as "disappointing." That's a term that one
might apply to the tone of the debate as a
whole,though"predictable"wouldalsowork.
The debate's unorthodox "no rules" format
did allow more vibrant interchanges than
we've come to expect from more scripted
televised debates. But the obnoxious, stereo-
typically political behaviors - the carefully
hedged evasions, the gratuitous swipes at
one's opponent, the candidates' determina-
tion to stay "on message" and thereby rein-
force the narratives their campaigns have
spent millions to teach voters - doubtless
discouraged some from watching the second
and third debates.
Those who did stay tuned, however,
might have learned something they'll want
to remember when they head to the polls:
Though DeVos is eager for the people of
Michigan to think of him only as a success-
ful businessman, the fact is that he is a radi-
cal social conservative. His opposition to gay
marriage and embryonic stem-cell research,
which he reiterated during the debate, prob-
ably didn't raise too many flags - he shares
those positions, for better or worse, with
many in Michigan's electorate.
But in believing abortion shouldn't be
legal in cases of rape and incest, DeVos
holds one of the least compassionate con-
servative views out there. Granholm was
stating a simple fact, not her political spin,
when she described DeVos's view that a
pregnant rape victim shouldn't be able to
consider an abortion as being "out of the
mainstream." Opinion polls on the issue
vary, but many find support for that cruel
position in the single digits.
The debate's moderators broke an uneasy
and unspoken truce between Granholm
and DeVos about discussing abortion. The
governor's campaign isn't particularly eager
for anyone to remember her veto of a bill to
ban so-called partial birth abortions, though
she is on solid ground in saying that the bill
she was presented lacked necessary health
exemptions.
DeVos's commitment to a far-right set of
"Christian" values, though,goes far beyond
abortion. His extreme social conservatism
has long been evident in the causes he's
supported through the Dick and Betsy
DeVos Foundation. It showed through last
month in his support for teaching intel-
ligent design, despite his handlers' best
efforts to pass his comments off as support
for local control of schools.
Certainly, part of the reason why DeVos
is so eager to talk about the economy is that
his experience in business comes across to
voters far more effectively than Granholm's
almost mechanical rhetoric about outsourc-
ing to China and "unfair trade agreements."
Part of the reason, no doubt, is DeVos's
genuine concern over Michigan's economic
woes. In Monday's debate, however, Michi-
gan voters saw another equally important
reason why this election will be solely a ref-
erendum on the state's economy if DeVos
has anything to do with it.
Smart security?
JOHN STIGLICH
1t "
mart secu-
rity" - that
is what the
Democrats
promise to
deliver if
electedthis
November.
After five years of being labeled
"weak" and "pre-Sept. 11" on
their national security policies, the
Democrats are mounting a coun-
ter-offensive to take back the issue.
However, a close inspection of
what the Democrats' "smart secu-
rity" entails scares the shit out of
me.
Public support for the war in Iraq
has dropped precipitously since its
inception in March 2003. With
each passing day, the American
people grow more war-weary and
skeptical of the men and women
who sent our armed forces into
battle under what we now know to
be false pretenses. Understandably,
Americans want their troops out as
soon as possible and are looking
for someone to blame for the per-
ceived misuse of force.
It is clear the Democratic Party
intends to blur its support of the
Iraq War by developing selective
amnesia. Incumbents who voted
for the war and face tough re-
elections, such as Senator Maria
Cantwell (D-Wash.), make bold
proclamations that they would not
have voted for the war if they knew
WMD's were not present in Iraq.
Wow, my eyes tear up at the Dem-
ocrats' offering their apologies.
The strategy is simple - by dis-
tancing themselves from their war
votes, Democrats will pander to
the growing antiwar wing of their
party. Any questions about the
Democrats' previous support for
the Iraq War are met with condem-
nation towards the Bush adminis-
tration for duping the poor, hapless
Democrats into authorizing it. All
I
the key intelligence President Bush
used to justify the war was avail-
able to Democratic members of
Congress, so they were either poor
analysts or too busy to read the
documents. Either way, is this real-
ly the type of people who should
run our government?
Smart security calls for "stra-
tegic redeployment" - a.k.a. cut
and run - from Iraq by moving
forces back to the Afghan front.
Rep. Jack Murtha (D-Penn.), the
Democratic point man on security,
suggested American forces could
play an emergency support role in
Iraq from American bases in Oki-
nawa, Japan. Apparently, Murtha
failed geography, because rede-
ploying troops to Bangor, Maine
would put them just as close to Iraq
and would accomplish the goal of
bringing the troops home. Then
again, no one asked that the Dem-
ocrats' plan for Iraq makes sense
- only that they have one.
Smart security has a legitimate
point in that the resistance in
Afghanistan has grown in strength
since the invasion of Iraq. The con-
tinued trade of opium in Afghani-
stan funds the rebels, and the Bush
Administration has failed to pro-
vide alternative economic activi-
ties for the opium farmers. I do not
think anyone should be adverse
to moving more American troops
back into the region to counter the
resistance, but the belief by most
Democrats that Afghanistan repre-
sents the central front in the war on
terror simply because Osama bin
Laden was headquartered there
shows an inability to analyze risk.
Whether you agree with the
decision to invade Iraq or not, Iraq
has turned into the central front in
the war on terror. President Bush
knows it, al-Qaida spokesterrorists
constantly remind their jihadists of
it, and implicit in the Democratic
rant about Bush creating a safe
haven for terrorists in Iraq is rec-
ognition of the danger the country
now poses. The Democratic plan is
to run away in the face of adver-
sity. We need only to look at the
post-Vietnam fallout for a model
of how this conflict will end if the
Democrats get their way.
Emboldened by the withdrawal
of American forces, the North
Vietnamese invaded Laos and
then successfully countered an
attack from Cambodia, all the
way expanding their communist
influence in the region. American
prestige in the international com-
munity took an enormous hit as
the loss in Vietnam raised serious
questions about our will to defeat
communism in the Cold War.
Thirty yearslater,we areencoun-
tering the same problems. If we
leave Iraq too soon, it will become
even more of a safe haven for ter-
rorists to train and rally from. The
terrorist stronghold could serve as
a launching pad for invasions into
neighboring countries. Innocent
civilians who supported the United
States will be targeted for elimina-
tion. The Iraqi coalition govern-
ment that we promised to support
will fall and view the United States
through eyes of the betrayed. Who
knows - the former coalition gov-
ernment officials could join arms
with the terrorists in opposition of
American presence in the region.
Civil war will break out between
the ethnic factions and our troops
will witness all of this through a
powerful telescope on Okinawa.
The only responsible course is
the one President Bush advocated
all along - stabilize the gov-
ernment, train the Iraqi security
forces, engage the terrorist strong-
holds, rebuild the Iraqi economy
and leave gradually. We face too
great a challenge in the war on ter-
ror to trust a group of politicians
whose support for armed conflict
is guided by public opinion polls.
Keeping these Democrats out of
power - that's smart security.
Stiglich can be reached
atjcsgolf@umich.edu.
4
4
4
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
Send all letters to the editor to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
If you ready love animals,
you'd better eat them
TO THE DAILY:
It is refreshing to finally hear from people so ada-
mantly against eating animal products of any kind,
like Dorothy Davies and Monte Jackson of SASHA
(West of A2, a haven for animals, 10/02/2006), that
their lifestyle isn't for everyone and that individuals
must "come to it themselves." However, removing
meat from one's diet is an ineffective way to com-
bat animal cruelty. While it is true that the "factory
farms" so prevalent in America today are invariably
and unnecessarily cruel in the way they raise their
animals, vegetarianism is an irresponsible way to
fight such conditions.
Since vegans make up only 0.2 percent of the
American populace, giant meat companies care
very little about those who avoid animal products
altogether. Such a small minority cannot possibly
have any noticeable effect on the market. It would
be near impossible to get Americans to stop eat-
ing meat altogether, so successfully combating the
inhumane treatment of livestock requires a desir-
able alternative.
With the recent surge in organic food products
offered everywhere from the organic produce sec-
tion in your local supermarket to the organic ware-
house known as Whole Foods, it is not difficult to
find free-range meat that has been raised humanely.
People concerned with the compassionate treatment
of animals have an obligation to eat the right kinds of
meat in order to encourage responsible farmers and to
help them expand their business. In order to solve the
problem of slaughterhouse cruelty, we must change
the eating habits of many, which simply cannot be
accomplished by removing animal products from the
diets of a few.
in the classroom. In fact, the evidence available
shows that the opposite is true: Patricia Gurin's
study published in the Harvard Educational
Review provided statistical evidence illustrating
how diversity on college campuses increases posi-
tive educational outcomes.
This brings me to my second point. The U.S.
Supreme Court already ruled on our University's
affirmative action policies in 2003, after hearing
both sides of the legal debate. It was ruled that it
is entirely constitutional, and therefore legal, to
consider race in hiring and admissions policies.
As Ward Connerly goes state-to-state advocating
proposals similar to Proposal 2, the entire legal
system that our country is predicated on is sub-
sequently undermined. We should be particularly
suspicious that these proposals are popping up in
individual states rather than becoming a nation-
wide issue.
Lastly, the language of the proposal is simple,
just as its advocates say it is. But therein lies a fun-
damental flaw. Simple legislation can be interpret-
ed in various ways, many times having unintended
consequences. According to MCRI advocates, this
was exactly the problem with affirmative action.
It looked good at the time, but when left up to
interpretation, it manifested itself in many differ-
ent ways, resulting in unintended consequences. A
more specific, detailed proposal is needed if we
are, as a society, looking to achieve equality.
These are three aspects of the MCRI debate
that go untouched, but which represent fundamental,
core flaws in the legislation. I urge our campus voting
community to look at this concrete, empirical logic
before entering the voting booth.
Jeremy Levine
LSA junior
Ea ne needs aI ! fI ittl li(iC
4
4
4
VIEWPOINT
I still can hardly believe the GOP
Graham Simmington A. .'Lw
LSA sophomore in their lives
BY TOBY MITCHELL
They must think they can get away with anything.
What other explanation could there be for Rep. Mark
Foley of pedophilia scandal? When I first heard the
story, I was jaded - so what, another Congressional
sex scandal. Then ABC published the contents of an
online conversation between Foley and a 16-year-old
page on abcnews.com, and they're as sick as you can
imagine. At least five other Republicans knew and
did nothing: A page told Rep. Rodney Alexander that
Foley's e-mails "freaked him out" and were "sick" 10
or 11 months ago, and former pages said they were
warned of Foley as far back as 2001. Foley chaired
the Congressional Caucus on Missing and Exploited
Children during the period when other House leaders
knew about his page problem. One can imagine him
taking a very personal interest in evidence presented
to the caucus.
Just when you thought it couldn't shock you any-
more, America's Republican government has reached
a new level of sleaze. Expect the Republican spin
machine to go into overdrive. Rush Limbaugh will
ream Foley out for 10 seconds, then claim Demo-
crats are "trying to make this political." Although
White House press secretary Tony Snow said Foley's
exchanges were "simply naughty e-mails," they're
beyond sick for a 51-year-old congressman. Then
again, would you expect higher standards from peo-
ple who've tried to normalize torture?
Foley might go to prison for long time, but what
about the House leadership? After Alexander was
alerted to Foley's predations, his first response
was not to go to the police, but to the body respon-
sible for Republican campaign strategy. Then Rep.
Tom Reynolds told House Speaker Dennis Hastert,
though when the scandal broke, Hastert denied he'd
heard anything. Reynolds essentially said, "I'm not
taking the fall for you, buddy," and told the press
Hastert did know. House Majority Leader John
Boehner admitted he mentioned it to Hastert, but
when questioned earlier by Roll Call, he frantically
denied he told anyone.
Once the House leaders stopped contradicting
themselves and emerged from the lawyer huddle,
what was their story? According to Rep. John
Smirkus, who conveniently forgot to mention
Foley's issues to the Democrat on the page board,
they simply asked Foley what he was up to and he
was "not honest." Since when do you ask someone
"Are you a sexual predator?" and expect a forth-
right answer? It's hard to call something this inept a
cover-up, but Reynolds's chief of staff really did try
to cut a deal with ABC News not to publish the text
of the online chats.
Now they'll protest "media bias" and claim that
"Democrats are just as bad as us" - surely something
to be proud of - butlet's look at the scorecard. Foley
is a pervert, and Smirkus, Boehner, Hastert, Reyn-
olds and Alexander knew and didn't act against him.
Hastert is under investigation, Duke Cunningham is
in jail, Bob Ney is going to jail, Tom Delay may go to
jail, Bill Frist is under investigation for insider trad-
ing, Conrad Burns traded votes for Jack Abramoff's
money, Scooter Libby helped expose a CIA agent,
Bob Corker is under investigation for shady land
deals, George Allen may have stuffed a deer's head in
a black couple's mailbox in college - and don't even
mention Ohio. Meanwhile, all the Democrats have is
Bob Menendez, William Jefferson, and Andrew Mol-
lohan. If this were the third quarter ina football game,
we'd be going home by now.
The bottom line is that Republicans wanted to
hold onto power so badly that they kept a predator
in charge of protecting children from sexual crimes
even after they had reason to believe he was solicit-
ing underage boys. It's just par for the course for a
government that treats the public's right to know as a
nuisance to its power. If this had occurred in Bush's
inner circle, you can bet it would still be classified as
a matter of national security and anyone who knew
would be vacationing at Guantanamo Bay. There is
simply no boundary the Republicans will not cross
to retain power.
Foley's enablers need to step down, and a full, non-
partisan investigation must be carried out. What's
likelier, though, is a lot of "we cannot comment on
an ongoing legal investigation" right through the elec-
tions. They may sacrifice Hastert to try to save the
rest, but the real question doesn't concern Foley or
his enablers. Are we so apathetic, cynical and corrupt
ourselves that we can't be motivated to boot a party
whose corruption has exceeded our wildest fears?
This election is a test of our moral fiber, and I hope
and pray that we'll pass, for the sake of our honor, our
future and our underage family members.
Mitchell is an LSA senior and a member
of the Daily's editorial board. He can
be reached at tojami@umich.edu.
If we reall need MCRI, its
backers need to show evidence
To THE DAILY:
The recent debate over the Michigan Civil Rights
Initiative has reached a high intensity as we begin this
election year. Unfortunately, the debate has focused
on the dichotomies of black versus white and equal
opportunity versus reverse racism. Yet MCRI is
about much more than philosophical and ideo-
logical notions of race and equality. It is these fun-
damental flaws in the proposal that should raise
questions in the minds of all students, from radi-
cal leftists to middle-of-the-road moderates to the
ultra-conservatives.
First, when legislation is proposed, it is the duty
of its advocates to present an empirical need for
it to be passed. It is the responsibility of MCRI to
show the voting community that we have a problem
in this state that such legislation would fix. MCRI
has failed to provide empirical evidence and stud-
ies showing how affirmative action policies have
resulted in lower productivity in the workplace or
TO THE DAILY:
The arguments James David Dickson cites in The
case for apathy (10/03/2006) are intuitively accurate
- but dangerously false. He agrees with a growing
sentiment on campus: Students are apathetic, activ-
ism is dead and that's OK. Furthermore, he believes
that political activism is no more pressing than social
interests (i.e. internships, community service and
beer). But, what Dickson must realize is that our
differing interests, goals and career choices, while
of course not hierarchical, are all interconnected by
politics. The idea that one is justified in dismissing
everything political with "I'm not interested" is mis-
leading. Politics is impossible to dismiss; it affects
everything. Even the interest he cites, drinking beer,
is only possible because the law say it is. So the moti-
vation behind political participation - namely vot-
ing - need not be an interest in politics specifically,
because if one is even remotely interested in the rules
that govern his daily actions, he is by default inter-
ested in politics.
Jonathon Kendall
LSA sophomore
The letter writer is a co-chair of Voice Your Vote.
I
4