Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Hey Editorial board, have you used the rec center recently, read a New York Times or seen the constrution for the new MRC? Student Senate has accomplished a few things...

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Rockchalk06 on April 11, 2007 at 1:53 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Change: denotes the transition that occurs when something goes from being the same to being different.... I think every coalition promises change.... it is the feasibility of that change that is important.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Deltahawk on April 11, 2007 at 2:24 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Yes, the Student Senate has accomplished some pretty significant stuff over the years. Nowhere in this editorial is that disputed. Read it again-- the point is that proposals have begun to sound the same over the last few years as coalitions merely repackage the same ideas as they themselves are renamed and reshaped.

"Change" is neither feared nor denounced in this editorial. Feasibility is indeed important. That's why the United Students ticket was endorsed--feasibility. Note the emphasis on "efficiency."

• Upvote 0
• Posted by TigerHawk on April 11, 2007 at 6:23 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Ladies and Gents... Aaron Olsen! Well said, man.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by RockChalk4 on April 11, 2007 at 9:41 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

End crime! Free textbooks! Unlimited parking!

We'll call it the "Big Ideas" coalition.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by delta77 on April 11, 2007 at 9:55 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Well written. I would say this Editorial is on the mark as far as the recent history of Student Senate is concerned, but several doubts come to mind.

Is such deception to be expected when, for at least the last five years, Senate has been primarily composed of, as the article alludes, 'renamed coalitions'?

And, are our expectations too high? I fear that the students we hope will make an appearance in Student Senate, those seeking more than 'a line on a future cover letter', are as disillusioned with the system as the Editorial Board.

That said, knowing both John Cross and Hannah Love personally, I can attest that at the very least these two individuals disprove the allegations of this article. Both take the responsibility of Senate seriously and have done and will continue to do, elected or not, an incredible job.

Aaron Olsen KU junior studying abroad in Murcia, Spain

• Upvote 0
• Posted by makeitabroad on April 11, 2007 at 7:51 a.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

"Though we appreciate the candid enthusiasm of Students’ Rights and the earnest dedication of Delta Force, United Students seems to operate with a machine-like efficiency that would make Tweed and Pendergast proud."

So you're endorsing the coalition that most reminds you of politics two most corrupt machines? Base your endorsements on their platforms, their abilities, and their intentions, but god, not the mechanics of their campaigns.

If you're going to hold the coalitions to such a high standard, shouldn't you at least hold yourself to a respectable standard?

• Upvote 0
• Posted by tlongpine on April 11, 2007 at 12:40 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Exactly what about this endorsement is lacking in respectability? If we always elected the candidates with the best intentions, ours would be a sorry government indeed. You probably know a lot of people who have the most noble intentions, but that doesn't mean they would make good public officials.

You're overlooking an important part of the Tweed and Pendergast machines: unsurpassed efficiency. The smoothest governments and groups worldwide, in terms of operation, are frequently corrupt. How do you think Hamas continues to attract so many Lebanese citizens, or how Iraqi clerics gain supporters? By providing the basic needs the government is failing to deliver. Besides, I'm not sure the Tweed and Pendergast machines were much more corrupt than our revolving lobbyist-government-lobbyist door we have today. We have a corporate oligarchy that operates under the pretense of a pure republic. No corruption there?

We endorse them not because they remind us of the politics of Tweed and Pendergast, but because of similarities in efficiency and operation. At some point, the noble ideals of campaigns must give way to the dirty business of governing. At that point, the person we want in the trenches is he or she who knows how to get it done. Save the high-minded, inflated language for the next campaign.

We have a peculiar tendency in America to distrust insiders. We constantly crave outsiders, mavericks, rebels, etc. What we're overlooking is that with government experience comes operational wisdom, and that's what we look for in a coalition.

The abilities and intentions are not at issue here; so much is stated in your quoted paragraph. We based our decision not on the semblance of corruption, but on the practical nature of experience. We may not want to see how laws are made, but we'd sure like to have people who know how to make them. Don't underestimate the power of streamlined efficiency, even if it comes at a price.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by TigerHawk on April 11, 2007 at 1:02 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

Have we lost perspective? Mt. Oread is not Capitol Hill. Student senators are neither politicians nor public officials. They are students, not to mention our friends, that volunteer (yes, the top positions are paid but little at that) their time every Wednesday mostly to manage the distribution of student fee revenues.

If asked I'm sure few, if any, of our classmates would describe their work in Senate as 'dirty business'. Just ask the committee members that attend committees every other week without ever being elected or recognized, simply because they enjoy taking part in our university's representative body.

Let us save our qualms with Washington for another debate and talk about KU!

• Upvote 0
• Posted by makeitabroad on April 11, 2007 at 3:08 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

You know, when I first read this article I was pretty much disappointed.

I thought that the lack of analysis and reasons for your endorsement made the article really weak.

On your part about Tweed. I have to agree with Tlongpine, I think its wrong to base your decision on which coalition to endorse by their "efficiency" and it was poor word choice to compare them to the likliness of Big Tweed. I mean its kind of like comparing them to the Hutus and the Tutsi for their efficiency. Tweed destoryed a lot of people's lives/ self respect and influenced the government with corruption and power. I believe that United students even wouldn't want to be compared with Tweed, especially now (with the whole libel issue), regardless of your 'pure' intentions.

I think that you shouldn't base your endorsement on efficiency, but on the issues, and I understand what you were saying in the article how you think that student senate doesnt make significant changes but they do ($54 student fee increase, electronic tickets, providing funding for many organizations, etc.). I am quite taken aback that a columnist would think that way, and would write such a editorial.

What I wished you did in this article was to give a why, an explanation, not just vague opinions that had no backbone to them.

Furthermore, I believe that your article was a little bit forced. I mean you first say that you endorse United Students, and say that you want a coalition that will be more significant on campus, but then add, "We caution, however, that United Students often sounds like a timely repackaging of coalitions past. We urge them to take a potential victory with the utmost seriousness and responsibility. Student Senate is not a résumé accoutrement."

I mean, Come on now. In this whole entire article you are complaining about how student senate hasnt done anything big on campus, everything sounds the like the same, but "United Students/Ignite/KUnited" has been in control for the past 5 years. Instead purposing an idea for change, you endorse simularity. You seem to want difference, but to me you come off hypocritical.

Thats all, Pax.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by Flynskyn on April 12, 2007 at 2:33 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal

Editorial: Campaign ideas disappoint

"At some point, the noble ideals of campaigns must give way to the dirty business of governing."

Or visa-versa.

• Upvote 0
• Posted by tlongpine on April 11, 2007 at 6:09 p.m.
• permalink
• suggest removal