CRs shouldn’t be blamed for YAF actions

After reading the letter, “MSU officials violate the anti-discrimination policy” (SN 10/18) I am distressed to find out that the MSU College Republicans were lumped with the MSU YAF in the anti-discrimination allegations by the Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives.

Knowing the background of what happened at the YAF event, I can’t possibly see how the College Republicans were involved. The College Republicans and YAF are two different and distinct groups, though they may not be seen that way. College Republican Chairman Ben Morlock has taken positive steps to distance himself and his group from the YAF.

The MSU Democrats fully support his efforts. The MSU YAF is a fringe group and does not represent what the majority of Republicans feel. This is by no means an argument that they be banned or silenced, I agree that they have a constitutional right to assemble, believe what they believe, and speak freely. The College Republicans have a right to be distinct from YAF.

As the President of the MSU Democrats, I would like to think that we would not be held responsible for fringe groups from our side of the political spectrum. The same should be true of the College Republicans.

MSU YAF Violates Anti-Discrimination Policy

William Allen and Frederick Fico apparently have been reading the Democrats’ playbook by attempting to tug at the heart strings of the common man, but in doing so engage in a unitary republican act – ignoring, forgetting, and lying about key details, all the while writing in a condescending manner perfected for the airwaves by the likes of Neil Cavuto or the President’s weekly radio address.

Granted, the MSU Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives may have been at fault by failing to provide the two groups key details on how and why they violated university policy. However, as neither a representative of the State News nor Michigan State University, only a representative of progressive ideals and common respect for fellow man, allow me to fill in the details. From the State News of September 20, 2007 “A student said he was kicked out of a Young Americans for Freedom meeting on Thursday and an Employee of the Southern Poverty Law Center said he was asked to leave prior to its’ start. Phillip Moon, a writer for the blog YAF WATCH, said YAF members told him he was not allowed in a private meeting based on his political affiliations. According to the university, all SRO’s must follow the following guideline: [SRO] shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, gender, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, marital status, disability, height, weight, veteran status, age, political beliefs, or familial status.. My father may not have bought me an education at an Ivy League, but my excellent public school education would seem to indicate that YAF violated this policy.

Aside from their self congratulatory attempts to cast themselves in Mel Gibson’s next multi-million self-love affair, these advisers have written almost as cryptic of a letter as the Office for Inclusion supposedly sent. As opposed to listing possible ways that the Office for Inclusion could remedy the purportedly serious violations it has committed, these two, wait for it, faculty advisers, resort to little more than academic name-calling and

Yet, these advisers are not the only authors to make buffoons of themselves on the opinion page. Leo Madarang’s piece of minority inclusion in the Republican Party was enough to give me a second spit take of the day. Glossing over the ‘facts’ of the piece; it is true that the republican party has a grand history of fighting for the rights of minorities; but a titanic shift occurred in 1964. President Johnson singed the Civil Rights Bill, and with it, reportedly commented “We [Democrats] just lost the south”. Since that historic moment, the Democratic Party has been the better representative of minorities (albeit far from perfect), of the two major parties. Madarang subconsciously knows this by failing to provide one example of Republican assistance to minorities after the historic signing.

Meanwhile, those few abominations of minority republicans almost all share one thing in common – inordinate wealth. I am sure the minority republican voting levels in East L.A. or the South Side of Chicago hovers somewhere near zero. Furthermore, I will not even begin to touch the social acceptance of Republican Filipino’s - a quite religious and prosperous minority group.

While I would love to continue to point out the flaws in the arguments of these two pieces, I have to excuse myself; I must go back to my fourth job to insure Health Care for my children, before the President is able to take that away from me.

Sincerely,

Miles Greengard
Political Director, MSU Democrats
Junior; International Relations

Hendrickson: Dems unwise to walk away from Michigan

Candidates who abandon state primary might want to think about Nov. 2008

The announcement by the Obama, Richardson, Edwards, and Biden campaigns that they would not be on the ballot in Michigan came as a surprise to some. To others, it is the continuation of a trend that started months ago.

For many years, Iowa and New Hampshire have had a stranglehold on the first Democratic contests. Politicians cater to the interests of these states almost exclusively - and the pandering reaches an all-time high as campaign promises are given out like they are nothing.

This year, Michigan has tried to have the Democratic candidates spend time talking about issues important to our state. We are in the midst of an economic crisis: a single state recession. Presidential candidates should devote some time to hearing our issues and telling the voters in Michigan what they plan to do to help us.

To accomplish this, the two political parties moved their primary election dates ahead in the order, breaking the Democratic National Committee's rules. In response to this, each candidate began by pledging not to campaign in this "rogue" state that so carelessly broke the rules. More recently, several Democratic candidates have decided to drop their names from the Michigan ballot in protest.

The shortsightedness of these campaigns is astounding. This obvious political stunt is meant only to try to woo the voters in the early states that are being bumped from the top spots. While this may win them Iowa and New Hampshire, what then happens when it is time to run in the fall?

In America today, elections are closer than ever. And Michigan remains a swing state. In either 2000 or 2004, if Michigan had swung to the Republicans, there would have been no need for any talk of Ohio or Florida.

President Bush would have won in what is considered a landslide by today's standards.

Considering this, what happens if one of the candidates, who is now taking their name off of the Michigan ballot ends up winning the nomination? These candidates have thumbed their nose at Michigan voters in favor of Iowa and New Hampshire.

Fast-forward to the general election in November 2008.

Michigan voters will be less inclined to show up to the polls to vote for this candidate because that candidate insulted them less than a year ago. Voters are not stupid, nor do they forget.

Depressed Democratic turnout, coupled with Republicans having campaigned here months longer than Democrats could - and probably will - have a drastic effect on the decision of Michigan electors. This would prove to be a devastating loss to the Democrats.

I implore the Democratic candidates to look down the road to the general election and to reconsider writing off Michigan.