Ben, although a Chicagoan, is an intelligent and moral guy. I am sure that his support for Emily is not influenced by his relationship with her, but instead by a shared set of ideas (be they ideological or other). Furthermore, I don’t think he has been involved with the false and negative character ads against Sara, Athan, and the Campaign for Change.

The reason these character attacks are so terrible is because they take away from a debate on ideas, policy, and issues. Let’s not repeat that mistake by engaging in hearsay accusations.

Most respectfully,
Neil

Ted: You’ve just perfectly described the OC, and y’all are still pushing the rock up the hill every morning. The damn thing never gets any lighter.

Here’s the problem though: If they are even half as well organized as the rumors purport them to be, then their position on slates is beyond grotesque. Let’s face it: the coordinated efforts of I-Fee-funded student programs has been the only constant in the ASUO for twenty years, at least. They all have an interest in fostering an environment in which substantial annual funding increases are the norm, and they work together. This is beyond a slate, it is a full-fledged, publicly-funded political machine. It’s a broad coalition of different kinds of groups –some are more political, others are not– but none of them have any interest in slowing I-Fee growth.

I could jump off this for hours, but the point here is that San and Emily have all the support they need by simply pandering to the most entrenched interests in the ASUO. Since their power base doesn’t need to be overly publicised to be effective, it serves their interest to criticize those who build coalitions in the public eye. This is what I meant by beyond grotesque. Not only should there be slates in ASUO politics, there should probably be a permanent “opposition party” which is not “anti-program,” but does constantly ensure that every dollar of student funding is well spent.

You missed my point: I said I couldn’t find anything, and threw out a statement that was conjecture, as an example that this has mostly been a clean campaign season.

The “juice” from the turnip is your own response, A(my).

And I agree . . . slates work. I still think that it is reasonable to ask that independent candidates be represented independently on the ballot. Why not?

BTW (and not that it really matters) I am not part of the Emily and San campaign — however I do know and like Emily and I do plan to vote for them.

Cheers.

Suddenly, “A” (Someone from Emily and San’s campaign, as the talking points line up perfectly) comes up bashing and going to town on things.

This, my friends, is how to extract juice from a turnip. However, before ending this, one quick point:

I ran for two years as an independent candidate. I lost both times. Both times were against slate candidates. For college campuses, slates are one of the few things that do work…as “abhorrent” as they may be.

Seriously though, these (admittedly) baseless rumors and theories are nasty, untrue, and potentially damaging and irresponsible.

The College Democrats endorsed Emily and San because they are a uniquely progressive ticket who supports a platform that is in line with the group’s own beliefs. Simple.

Slates should be a none issue . . . but since they’re getting so much press, I gotta say that it DOES make a difference if candidates have a slates name next to theirs on the ballot. It ALSO makes a difference if candidates are asked to vote for the executive who “endorses” them — whatever that means. The point is that it SHOULD NOT make a difference in the elections — so why not at least make them run on the ballot as individuals if they’re supposed to vote like individuals once they get elected?? What’s the harm?

As far as “Fight Club” goes . . . I’m not convinced there’s some organized conspiricy. Most importantly though, I think you are wrong to suggest that state or “national” platform issues that these groups lobby for and support are NOT campus issues — they ARE. We are talking about tuition cost, textbook cost, academic freedom and diversity issues, privicy issues, disciplinary models, grants and loan models, and so much more. I think that these are ALL “campus issues”. I mean, sure . . . Emily and San are not advocating for $59 million in EMU renovations whiile at the same time claiming to be increasing “student support” AND cutting fees . . . (where, or where . . . does the money come from??) . . . but I do think they support campus issues.

Anyway. That’s all. Cheers.

“In the mortality of life your vision is skewed, money does not exist and your television is your only god. You are a slave to the proverbial machine called progress. In ignorance there is bliss, you can fall into your daily routine of cultural normalcy, becoming an elicit product of your environment, or you can take the path less traveled, you can wind down the road of enlightenment, the dark and frightening path against the dangerous currents of the populous who tear at the heart of reality’s true embodiment. In this truth you will destroy your old world, your happy little state of being in favor of sociological banishment, the decent into degradation. The truth in its wholarity will become your addiction. Then one day you find yourself quoting the genius of Sun Tzu in a burned out ally, you look up at the direment of the crimson sky and you see, that which does not kill me only makes me stronger.” ~Paul Buchanan

And from what I hear Miles, you are wrong. Its Paul Buchanan that apparently Emily has been tapping. I can only hope one day, my hook ups are part of a blog…

The involvement of the campus democrats raises the question of whether other off-campus groups work to influence the ASUO elections. One hears rumors that OSA coordinates efforts to elect an Executive that is familiar with and sympathetic to the way they do business. Apparently OSCC and OSERA are involved in these strategies as well, on a statewide basis. From what I understand this effort is codenamed “Fight Club.”

I want to emphasize that this is simply a rumor at this point, and I only mention it hear for two reasons. First, it makes sense. An ASUO Executive who is an OSA insider will be more likely to spend Incidental-Fee money on OSA lobbying efforts. OSA gets our money spent on their agenda items, and can also promise “student support” for their political allies through affiliated groups such as the Campus Democrats and the Oregon Bus Project.

The second reason for bringing this up, is because it highlights the differences between the candidates. Emily McLain is a brilliant, motivated, ambitious young woman who has already proven that she is far more interested in mainstream politics, than in the campus-oriented political debate. I believe that campus issues are more than enough to keep student leaders busy, and that allowing state and national-level lobbying groups to set the campus agenda is ill-advised. The OSA has no interest or expertise in the issues which uniquely affect our campus, and their involvement in our student politics bring unnecessary political baggage to the table.

If I am way off the mark, or if someone with firsthand experience with “Fight Club” would like to shed some light on the situation, please contact me at ocomment[at]uoregon[dot]edu.

But, there’s barely anything out there. It’s actually been a good campaign season…