"Dutton was not previously connected to any coalition." The accuracy of this statement is... well, let's just say it's the sort of thing you can only find in the UDK.

Your Senate writers are so special! So very special!

The quagmire that has been Student Senate coalitions over the last few years can only be deciphered by someone who is acutely aware and involved with politics at KU. While I sympathize that the Kansan should have reporters who endeavor to understand and unravel these things, I also want to point out a few facts in their defense:

1) Sarah Neff (the writer) is NOT the Kansan Senate reporter for this semester. She did a great job with material that she may not have been completely familiar.

2) I think one of the main problems with Senate these days is the lack of transparency, and the lack of understanding of the general student population. While the Kansan is a great resource to start fighting those two things, it certainly doesn't help that every time they write something about Senate there are folks like you shooting them down (I've checked your previous comments and you certainly have a track record for doing that very thing).

Anyway, just wanted to say "thanks" to the Kansan and Sarah for reporting on Senate goings-on, and while there may have been a few mistakes, they were minor and are easily outweighed by the benefit of the article in the minds of all but the biggest naysayers and complainers.

I have a track record for understanding what is going on. I mean, what would be better... sitting here, reading this article and NOT commenting?

Riley Dutton helped maintain websites and databases for KUnited, Ignite, and Delta Force in previous elections. While it would be fully fair for the Kansan reporter to say that Dutton has not ridden a single party line, to say he was previously uninvolved is more than just oversight and lack of fact checking. It's truly lazy. In fact, I would be willing to wager that Mr. Dutton told the reporter of his previous involvements and the reporter just glossed over them because it was more than one side of involvement.

If you know "Sarah Neff... is NOT the Kansan Senate reporter... (and) she did a great job...", then no doubt you work for the Kansan, so you standing here and saying it's okay is silly. It's not okay. Not because this particular article is hugely misleading, but because this will be a start towards a typical campaign season: one where the students cannot learn about the Senate. The reason Senate is bad is the students, not the Senate. There is ALWAYS within the mix of the persons running those who would make a difference and truly work for the students. However, the Kansan makes sweeping statements that never aid in getting to the bottom of things. Broad endorsements of one campaign or the other coupled with simplistic candidate coverage kills the election.

Please, rockchalkpook, if you really think the Kansan is doing a good job because you work there, look HARDER. They are failing the students even more than the Senate, and can far more easily change. If they start telling the full truth tomorrow, nobody fires you... we might actually bother READING you instead of just flipping to the Sudoku and leaving you on the floor of Budig when done.

Anyone who has has read the Kansan more than once, or that has looked at the Sarah's bio page would realize that she is not the Senate reporter. Also, clicking on OldGoldLegs name would reveal that he/she must know who the senate reporter is, since there is a comment on at least four of the senate stories from OldGoldLegs.

I've got to agree w/ student and rockchalkpook. You are clearly somebody involved w/ Senate, seeing as you've commented on so many of the stories about it. Do you think, perhaps, that the reference to Dutton referred to just the previous election?

Dutton was involved in the last election.

And I don't really care who the Senate reporter is. Is that fair to say, "well, they don't usually report that"? You can be wrong if it's not what you usually do? When the Senate screws up an issue they aren't "usually" involved in, they are (and should be) crucified. Honestly, this article was probably the best article of any that I have commented on; it had MORE truths and only one (albeit dramatic) falsehood.

Also, I don't see the problem with me commenting poorly on poorly researched and written Senate articles. I think that Senate and University governance are the two most poorly covered issues in the Kansan. Those two issues matter much more than the majority of news stories the Kansan writes. And I'm not saying that against human-interest stories, I'm saying anything dealing with KU functions. Senate and governance are both EXTREMELY important and get crap coverage. The reason you don't see me writing about the poor coverage of the University Senate (that's faculty, staff, students, etc.) is because the Kansan doesn't even go to the meetings and report. Other than the very important calendar discussions, the Kansan has not informed students about all sorts of issues this year.

As OldGoldLegs has made clear through example, one problem with those involved in Senate is that they tend to focus on less important things, or let those insignificant details trip them up from the task at hand. Whether OldGoldLegs is still in Senate or not, it's safe to say that worrying about Dutton's allegiance is not affecting anything in Senate or this campaign. If he or she thinks for one second that this detail will change Connect's focus, or even sway voters, then OldGoldLegs shouldn't even be involved in such a rigorous organization. If it were up to OldGoldLegs, then nothing important would ever get done in Senate because he or she would be worrying about image rather than efficiency.
...hence why I presume OldGoldLegs IS involved in Senate presently, regardless of his or her coalition alignment.
Senators should try not to read the Kansan's senate coverage, because the facts AND opinions will only trip them up. Leave this privilege up to the general public. The senators' friends should read it for them and report any pressing concerns. There's a reason that the President of the United States won't read any newspapers. It stops him from doing his job without self-consciousness interfering.

Yes, because Bush not paying attention to the media has done great things for our country.

And, btw, I'm not a student. So, not a senator. Debating about me doesn't change the crap coverage.

OldGoldLegs, how can you make the claims you make about the kansan doing a bad job when the thing you decided to comment on from the article is a minor oversight and nothing relating to student issues. I'm sorry you didn't get anything else out of the article other than that.