4 - Tuesday, March 20, 2007 The Michigan Daily - michigandaily.com Edited and managed by students at the University of Michigan since 1890. 413 E. Huron St. Ann Arbor, MI 48104 tothedaily@umich.edu KARL STAMPFL IMRAN SYED JEFFREY BLOOMER EDITOR IN CHIEF EDITORIAL PAGE EDITOR MANAGING EDITOR Unsigned editorials reflect the official position of the Daily's editorial board. All other signed articles and illustrations represent solely the views of their authors. Vote Yost, Dar for MSA Reisinger, Madoff ticket a sound choice for LSA-SG The student government elections on Wednesday and Thurs- day promise to be the most uneventful in recent years. The Michigan Action Party; a descendent of the now-defunct Students 4 Michigan, should easily win the president and vice president positions in both the Michigan Student Assembly and LSA-Student Government, as well as the vast majority of represen- tative seats in both bodies. Bong Hits 4 Jesus." - Slogan on banner that Joseph Frederick held near his high school in Juneau, Ark. in 2002. Appeals courts recently ruled that Frederick's free speech rights were violated when school administrators suspended him for holding the sign, as reported yesterday by msnbc.com. SAM BUTLER I 11 Ir; S f - } - .. r E 0+1 e s - uvve tA. ea. YOU 1stelOLn I u~asrJ ThiscartoonoriginallyappearedintheNov.20,2002 editionofiTheMichigan Daily. Fool me twice, shame on me 0 6 6 MAP candidates Zack Yost and Moham- mad Dar face only a long-shot bid from the Defend Affirmative Action Party's Mari- cruz Lopez and Sarah Barnard for the top positions in MSA. MAP's Keith Reisinger and Hannah Madoff are completelyunchal- lenged for the top positions in LSA-SG. Perhaps after last year's fiasco, a quiet year is to be expected. The all-out ruckus that pitted the dominant S4M against the Michigan Progressive Party, the Student Conservative Party and DAAP left voters - even candidates - dazed and featured at least a couple of violations of electoral rules - if not federal laws. MPP, SCP and, to a lesser extent S4M disbanded, leaving DAAP and a fresh slate for this year. In preparation for this election, MAP was formed, mostly by former members of S4M along with some who formerly sided with MPP. Although its candidates high- light differences between MAP and S4M - insisting that MAP is more diverse, less about winning and more about get- ting the job done - it's hard not to see the glaring similarities. MAP has no ideology and looks set to monopolize the two larg- est bodies of student government, the very two characteristics that defined its dispa- rate predecessor. MAP wants to be the party of everyone and as such seems to stand for nothing and everything at once. Its ambition is com- mendable, but never should such a porous' platform go as lightly challenged as MAP has so far. Spirited debate and competition is always preferable to the foregone con- clusion that is this year's race. Even if it eventually spiraled into chaos, last year's election offered distinct choices, an inte- gral part of the democratic process that is largely missing this year, with DAAP as the only alternative. Anchored by members of BAMN, the radical affirmative action group, DAAP is much more straightforward in its plat- form. It wants campus diversity defended at all costs in the wake of November's affir- mative action ban and to avoid, in its own words, resegregation and a return to the days of Jim Crow. In addition, the party claims a laundry list of liberal positions such as favoring empowerment of women and opposition to the war in Iraq. We can't disagree with the positions DAAP takes on those issues, but it's hard to support a party whose candidates have no experience and seem to have complete- ly missed the point of cooperative govern- ment. It's one thing to stand strongly for an issue and quite another to be antagonistic and counterproductive. DAAP promises that it is ready to govern a wide range of. issues, but its candidates' comments sug- gest otherwise. For example, Lopez relentlessly decries AirBus, a service initiated by MSA to pro- vide students cheap rides to the airport. Her argument is that MSA should dispose of fri- volities and focus on the issues that matter, like preserving a diverse campus. In imply- ing that it is the job of candidates to tackle controversial issues, she's absolutely right. But her naive criticism of a service that benefits students who cannot afford cars or taxi fares suggests that DAAP is not ready to accept the considerable responsibility of representing students. Ensuring diversity at this campus is of utmost importance, but it cannot be stu- dent government's only concern. Students are also worried about tuition hikes, text- book prices, neighborhood lighting, park- ing and a litany of other issues that DAAP either overlooks or minimizes. The MAP executive candidates for both MSA and LSA-SG on the other hand, have experi- ence both in student government and in dealing with these issues. SA-SG candidates Reisinger and Madoff are especially impressive. Because LSA-SG is usually out of the limelight and doesn't tackle the most controversial political issues continu- ally impressed upon MSA, its candidates are forced to talk about their records of accomplishment. Reisinger and Madoff do so impressively and convincingly. They point to the textbook forum held last semester and the "this sucks" e-mail group as examples of their respondingto the needs of students. They are right to do so, but we remind you that nothing has come out of that forum as of yet and sending an e-mail to LSA-SG about what sucks on campus doesn't automatically fix the problem. Much of that isn't the fault of the candidates; slicing through University bureaucracy is no easy task. Nevertheless, Reisinger and Madoff are among the most competent, qualified and dare we say likable candidates we've seen in recent years. MAP's candidates for president and vice president of MSA, Yost and Dar are also experienced, qualified and likable - even if they do feel the need to repeatedly point out that one of them is Jewish and the other Muslim (which makes it possible to suspect something more than mere coinci- dence). Possible tokenization aside, we're convinced they can govern effectively. The only problem is their standing alone and relatively unchallenged, which has left them on their heels. While DAAP has its shortcomings, it does at least stand fiercely for issues and ideologies. What exactly do MAP MSA candidates stand for if everything is not an option? They'll proudly say that it isn't the place of MSA parties to have ideologies, and we will proudly disagree. Having several ideologically driven par- ties, each representing different issues and interests would make paying atten- tion to this election worthwhile and offer actual choices where votes make a differ- ence. After all, the turnout spike that fol- lowed last year's brutal campaign was no coincidence. Multiple parties and diverse platforms are not only desirable but neces- sary; it's not democracy if all votes mean the same thing. The Daily Editorial Board endorses ZACK YOST and MOHAMMAD DAR for MSA president and vice president. We also endorse KEITH REISINGER and HANNAH MADOFF for LSA-SG presi- dent and vice president. There's one thing about the 2004 presidential election that will never stop bothering me: People have died because of it. It is my belief that because Presi- dent Bush was re-elected in 2004, more people - Iraqi civilians and American servicemen - have died in Iraq than would have died had Bush been voted out. You don't have to agree; for the purposes of this column, it is enough that you know I believe it. So now you'll IMRAN understand why I remain so bitter SYED about 2004. I could care less for John Kerry or the hoards of liberal attack dogs that made that election as divisive and confusing as Bush's minions made 2000. I care only about the fact that, in my opin- ion, the wrong man won and thou- sands have had to pay the price. I could blame Ralph Nader for undermining Kerry's credibility among strong Democrats, Bush for launching cowardly personal attacks or the cheaters who stole Ohio. But, at this point we almost have to take those things as given shortcomings of the American system. What both- ers me above all else is that it was a new trend in the electoral process that gave the wrong man a "mandate" while leaving the right 'man reeling in its wake - and we're making the same mistake again. Of the many Democratic challeng- ers who rose to oppose Bush, there was only one I ever thoughtcouldbeathim. Howard Dean stomped around like a cave man with his early lead, Kerry gave long, winding speeches in his really high pants and John Edwards told us a million times about just what his father did (he was a mill-worker, in case you missed it). But I knew that these frontrunners had no shot; Bush had something on all of them. There was only one man who scared the Rove/Cheney electoral war machine, one man mainstream enough to attract support from both sides and with a reputation that armoredhis persona toturnbackeven the most incisive of personal attacks. Gen. Wesley Clark was the only can- didate in 2004 who could kick out a president in wartime and thereby avoid at least some of the death and destruction that has followed in Iraq because of Bush's stubbornness. Clark was a valedictorian of his class at West Point and a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford. He received a Bronze Star, a Silver Star and a Meri- torious Service Medal for his service in Vietnam (and he didn't burn any of them, which helps his image today). He was Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in President Clinton's second term and received the Presi- dential Medal of Freedom in 2000. He was also an outspoken critic of Bush's war in Iraq. The Democrats dream candidate? At least in 2004, yes. But there was a problem: Wesley Clark also had no chance of winning the Democratic nomination. Clark was an accomplished four- star general with war experience, not a career politician. That is what made him the ideal candidate to defeat Bush. Comparisons to Dwight Eisen- hower, without a doubt the most bi- partisanly respected president of the 20th century, were exaggerations but not completely without merit. But even if not being a cunning, schem- ing, conniving power-fiend would endear him to the people, it doomed Clark's campaign in the primaries. He announced his candidacy in September of 2003, several months after the other Democratic candi- dates. He had no reason to do it earli- er; the presidential power-trip wasn't on Clark's mind, and he only made his decision after carefully weighing his options. Seeing how entrenched Kerry and Dean were in Iowa, he opted to skip that primary; his funds were limited after all. But regardless of what Clark said or did, that late start was enough to doom him. Other candidates had spent months raising money and were ready with their attacks by the time Clark entered the race. How bad did it get? Joe Lieberman (among others) actu- ally dared to question Clark's loyalty to the Democratic Party. You know, that same Lieberman who alone sup- ports Bush's war and now identifies as an independent. So Wes Clark voted for Reagan. Might I remind you that everybody, from California to Massa-freakin- chusetts, voted for Reagan in 1984? The point is, this type of baseless mis- characterization should not have been so firmly entrenched by the time Clark entered the race. But because some Clark's 2004 loss proves worthy of remembrance. candidates started their campaigns - oh, I don't know - in the third grade, later arrivals stood no chance. Sound familiar? It should. Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Edwards are decent people who would be a whole lot better than Bush as president. But the unfathomably earlystartto this campaignislimiting our choices to only those candidates, and leaving potentially better can- didates - Al Gore and Clark, among others - with a lot of ground to make up should they decide to enter. The media may drown us in Hill- ary or Obama mania, but let's not for- get the other guys when they enter the race. Only an idiot makes the same mis- take twice in a row. Imran Syed is the Daily's editorial page editor. He can be reached at galad@umich.edu. r i a 4 SEND LETTERS TO: TOTHEDAILY@UMICH.EDU Editorial Board Members: Emily Beam, Kevin Bunkley, Amanda Burns, Sam Butler, Ben Caleca, Brian Flaherty, Mara Gay, Jared Goldberg, Emmarie Huetteman, Toby Mitchell, Rajiv Prabhakar, David Russell, Gavin Stern, John Stiglich, Jennifer Sussex, Neil Tambe, Radhika Upadhyaya, Rachel Wagner, Christopher Zbrozek to be called I Viewpoint writer misunderstands term start to; Before push the conflict in the Middle East look into the h evercomplain TO THE DAILY: and Jordanian While I understand that Paul Abowd's viewpoint wars and hav (Divestfrom complicity, 03/19/2007) does not represent superiority ov The Michigan Daily's point of view, I do not appreciate most recent vi the statements made in his article. Abowd essentially states that Israel is a terrorist Allen Weiss nation that oppresses Palestinians just for the heck of LSA senior it. The viewpoint is biased, and if Abowd were to live as an Israeli for a year, he might understand why the country does what it does. How would he like it if the Amaker pizza place next door was blown suddenly up by Pales- tinian bombs just because it was run by Israelis? Israel teamsfi is not a terrorist nation, and Abowd is out of line. Palestinians, only in the 1980's did that apply to only Muslims). hing for divestment, maybe Abowd should istory of the area and question why no one ed aboutEgyptiancontrolofthe GazaStrip control of the West Bank. After losing five ing to acknowledge Israel's clear military er the Arab world, divestment is only the le attempt to exterminate Israel. s departure leaves uture up in the air 4 I ERIN RUSSELL FOP TOJAY'$S SPEAKFASr', CHEF OY WILL GE PQEPAAING SCPAMBLEO EG. THI 15 YOUP SPAIN. YEAH. CAN YOU ANY QUESTIONS? MAKE MY ?PAINS tENO/CT WITH EXTRQA PEPPE2P Talia Schlamowitz LSAfreshman History ofIsrael and Palestine sheds light on the conflict TO THE DAILY: Monday's viewpoint by Paul Abowd (Divestfrom complicity, 03/20/07) presents some very intriguing questions. After reading the article, I picture a pre- 1967 Middle East with a glorious Palestinian nation - a citadel of human rights and liberalism whose citizens live in peace and prosperity amongst their neighbors. After doing some research, I was unable to discover many facts about this nation. Who was the "Palestin- ian" head of state? Where was the "Palestinian" capi- tol? Where was the "Palestinian" delegation at the United Nations? In fact, the only reference I could find was to many Jewish groups pre-1948 (yes, Jews used TO THE DAILY: In response to Athletic Director Bill Martin's com- ments that former men's basketball coach Tommy Amaker did everything he asked of him (AmakerAxed, 03/19/2007), I do not understand how Martin can say such words the day after Amaker was fired. Martin said that Amaker's firing was best for Michigan bas- ketball in the long run. While only time can tell, Amaker's firing could be the downfall of the future of Michigan basketball. With three all-star recruits - Alex Legion, Corper- ryale Harris and Kelvin Grady - it appears as though Amaker was doing an excellent job in looking out for Michigan in the long run. However, with his firing, these recruits are no longer certain they want to give their talents to a Michigan team without Amaker. We will have to wait and see how much of an impact Amaker's firing will have on the future of Michigan basketball. In the mean time, I believe that his firing was somewhat premature. Brad Pretzer Kinesiology sophomore I I