More in-depth, accurate coverage needed of SGA issues
To the editor:
The editorial "If it looks like a party, and you’re calling it a party, it’s a party" (Opinion, Monday) is another example of uninformed commentary provided by The Daily Cougar editorial board.
This editorial singles out one group – the REDvolution party – without any mention of opposing factions. The author must be unaware that another party, UHNow, was formed before the REDvolution party even existed.
The editorial lacks consistency; are REDvolution candidates breaking the rules, or aren’t they? To put it simply: no, we’re not. In February, the incumbent candidates approved legislation to remove party labels strictly from the ballot, not from the campaign itself. To do so would be unconstitutional. The spirit of the legislation was to prevent candidates from riding on the coattails of their party. Candidates must now work hard for their votes. Factions, however, will always exist.
The article implies the issues the REDvolution candidates address are trite and arbitrarily developed. Did the author forget that we are students as well? We’ve spoken to nearly 30 student organizations, and our platform was developed from these discussions. It’s difficult to know this, however, if Daily Cougar reporters are not researching and asking questions. Not once have we seen an in-depth report about anyone’s platform, REDvolution candidate or not.
These types of uninformed attacks hurt the credibility of The Daily Cougar. They challenge us by implying that we are untrustworthy – yet we are the ones who are working and meeting with students every day.
If The Daily Cougar cannot accurately report on candidates in the SGA election, how can they expect students to trust them?
Aleah Al-Sad, corporate communications junior SGA senator-at-large No. 2
Sam Dike, political science junior SGA vice president
Obama column does a lot of asking, little answering
To the editor:
I read with peculiar interest the column written by Mohammad Ahmad, "Obama fans don’t know what they’re voting for" (Opinion, Feb. 26), hoping to read something substantive from the detractors of the Illinois senator.
I found his article riddled with falsehoods and false posturing. He noted, "the last debate against Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., highlighted his lack of substance." Not true. What we saw in both debates was a man who can go toe-to-toe with the 35 years of experience his opponent touts. The innuendo of lack of substance came 360 degrees for Ahmad, in his eventual grudging admission that a policy pamphlet or two does exist somewhere in the Barack Obama train coach. Yet, Ahmad came down on the side of disbelief. "Who in their right mind would join the expanded AmeriCorps program under Obama?" he asked. I hope Ahmad asks that of the millions who took the same offer from President Kennedy.
He questions whether the nation can afford middle-class tax credit, but will not ask how we afforded Bush’s upper-class tax cut, corporate tax write-off and impossible tax credits for oil companies. Obama will save $12 billion per month, from rolling back tax incentives for Warren Buffet, ExxonMobil and Halliburton, and put that money in your pockets, in your health care and in your children’s future.
Michael Oluwagbemi II, electrical engineering graduate student
