Newsroom: (541) 346-5511
Suite 300, Erb Memorial Union
P.O. Box 3159, Eugene, OR 97403
E-mail: editor@dailyemerald.com
Online: www.dailyemerald.com
Friday, January 16, 2004
Oregon Daily Emerald
COMMENTARY
Editor in Chief:
Brad Schmidt
Managing Editor:
Jan Tobias Montry
Editorial Editor:
Travis Willse
Moderate Clark seems
i
most promising
of Democratic candidates
"Just because a person can subject
himself to the degradations of a lifetime
in politics and finally end up in the
White House is certainly no reason to
respect him, as Nixon has recently giv
en us elegant evidence to confirm."
— HunterS. Thompson
The Democratic Party has become
more and more like the Little Engine
That Could lately. The sad truth, how
ever, is that nobody would really care
if the damn thing fell off the tracks,
rolled down a cliff and exploded into
a million tiny pieces.
Which is why writing a Democratic
endorsement based on the issues is dif
ficult. In a country where much of the
voting public cares more about Joe
Millionaire than Joe Lieberman, issues
tend to take a back seat to appearances.
Like when somebody calls up his or
her Great Aunt Hilda to discuss John
Kerry's hideously Beatlesesque mop
top haircut instead of analyzing his
plan to roll back the Bush tax cuts. It's
much easier during the general elec
tion when both sides are, in a perfect
world, polar opposites and clear lines
of division can be drawn.
This isn't true for the 2004 primary
where everybody and their mother and
their mother's pet lemur is vying for the
Democratic nod. And all the lemurs
want better health care somehow, less
terrorism some way and lower taxes us
ing the patented "Screw the rich!" for
mula (as opposed to the infamous Re
publican "Screw the poor!" theory).
So who can really say for sure
which candidate is the best pick? Hell,
we know from their sound bites and
news stories that they all pretty much
hate Bush. We know Howard "Mc
Govern" Dean is angry about some
thing. We know A1 Sharpton loves to
play the race card. We know Lieber
man couldn't even get endorsed by
his former presidential running mate.
We know Kerry would look hilarious
in an Elvis costume. We know Dick
Gephardt is some guy from some
state with some view on something.
Furthermore, these politicians are
incapable of relating to anyone under
30 years old. Sure, it's terrible that no
jobs exist and I'll probably end up sell
ing oranges on the side of Interstate-5
when 1 graduate, but what exactly is
one guy with a re-election to focus on
going to do about it? And is that ingen
ious plan going to affect the job mar
ket in the next year? Does a Democratic
candidate's view on same-sex marriage
really matter in a society becoming
more and more hostile toward gays?
These are important questions that cut
to the heart of the American political
process and, thus, will probably never
be answered.
But since I consider myself a mod
erate, I'll endorse the most moderate
looking candidate: Wesley Clark. I like
his views on social policy — namely,
his distaste for the USA PATRIOT Act
and his ideas for decreasing the cost of
higher education — and his experi
ence with the military can't hurt in a
time of world conflict like the present.
At any rate, it'll make for an interest
ing race this year.
Contact managing editor Jan Montry
atjanmontry@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Unimpressive candidates
don’t get my vote
I am supposed to use this space to
endorse a candidate for president. I
can't. I've looked around at my choic
es and am singularly unimpressed.
So, instead, I thought I'd tell you how
I plan on making a decision come
November.
First, there are
some issues I
find more im
portant than
others. For exam
ple, I hold my re
productive rights very
dear. And, as both the National Orga
nization for Women and Pat Robert
son know, we're just one Supreme
Court justice away from losing that
right. So, this year, I will not vote for
anyone who isn't pro-choice.
At the same time, any promise to
cut taxes immediately raises my hack
les. lire people who end up benefit
ing from tax cuts are never those who
are actually in need. Worse, when tax
es are cut we are left to face either
deficit spending — a no-no in my
book — or funding cuts for programs
that I happen to believe in, like Head
Start. So, I will be voting for someone
who tells me that the goal is a bal
anced budget.
A new issue for this election is the
war on terrorism. I'll be looking for a
candidate who has a reasonable and
comprehensive plan for disengaging us
from our occupation of Iraq and our
presence in Afghanistan. My vote
wm go 10 someone wno
knows that the true deter
rent to terrorism is a
fair, just and con
sistent foreign
policy rather
than an in
crease in
security
and mil
spend
As always, I will
be looking for some
one willing to protect
the environment.
Promise me there will
be no drilling for oil in
the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge — and give
me a reason to believe the
promise will be kept — and my
vote is yours.
By no means is that the sum total
of what I'm looking for. There are cer
tainly other issues that are important
— health care reform, file-sharing and
space exploration just to name a few.
My vote, however, will be determined
by more than individual issues. I want
someone I can respect; I'll settle for
someone who is passingly familiar
with the English language. I want
someone who is willing to make de
cisions that are in our nation's best in
terests 50 years from now, not just
those that are most likely to win re
election. I suppose it is terribly ideal
istic, but I'm looking for someone
who can lead us as a nation down a
wise and prudent path to a future of
growth, prosperity and, most of all,
peace. When I find him or her, I'll let
you know.
Contact columnist
Jessica Coie-Hodgkinson at
jessicacolehodgldnson@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Support
of death
penalty mora
torium neces
sary in Democ
ratic candidate
There are two
Democratic candi
dates who strongly
and impenitendy
support an imme
diate moratorium
on the death penal
ty: Dennis Kucinich
and Al Sharpton.
Any candidate who weakly supports
(Wesley Clark), flip-flops (John Kerry,
John Edwards and Howard Dean) or
strongly rejects (Dick Gephardt and Joe
Lieberman) a moratorium on the
death penalty does not deserve the De
mocratic nomination.
Capital punishment is the most sinis
terly racist institution in America today.
Since reinstated, 80 percent of
those receiving the death penalty have
been executed for
murders involv
ing white vic
tims, even
though
blacks and whites are murdered in near
ly equal numbers, according to an
Amnesty International report
Furthermore, 20 percent of blacks
receiving the death penalty are con
victed by all-white juries. Study after
study shows that white jurors place
more value on the lives of whites than
on the lives of blacks, consciously or
unconsciously, when it comes to de
cisions about capital punishment.
Where a candidate stands on the
death penalty is a racial litmus test. If
they aren't going to stand firmly for a
moratorium, I doubt they will seri
ously address other examples of insti
tutional racism like the war on drugs,
felon disenfranchisement and the
public school system.
They will always choose to appear
soft on racism rather than appear soft
on crime because they know the latter
will cost them more votes. Blacks can
no longer afford to support this kind
of politician. That is why I am so dis
appointed that Carol Moseley Braun,
a vocal sup
porter of a
fSL moratorium, has
dropped out of the race
and thrown her support
Howard Dean.
My vote (if I were a Democrat)
would go to Dennis Kucinich or A1
Sharp ton. The fact that neither has a
chance of winning speaks volumes
about the misplaced priorities of the
Democratic Party and of Democratic
voters themselves.
Contact columnist David Jagemauth
at davidjagemauth@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
Mistakes after Sept. 11
should have us looking
for more in 2004
I'm scared for the future of our na
tion and for the future of humanity.
Every day more of our freedoms are
being taken away. Every day more of
our resources are overused and over-ex
ploited, more adults sit in jail cells,
more children fail in their classes. Every
day something goes wrong, and as an
audience, we don't always hear about it
I'm not sure I believe in our govem
ment anymore. I love our nation
ana me people who live here, but
so much that goes on within the
walls of the White House and the
Pentagon seems backward
and wrong. I'm not sure we as
humans are meant to mle over
one another.
It's very easy and obvious to
blame the current president,
George W. Bush, and his admin
istration for the problems
we are experiencing. A slow
economy; destruction of
the environment; ongoing
military action; the failure
of public schools; the inad
equacy of the power grid;
Social Security and health
care; and the retraction of ba
sic rights, courtesy of the ever
changing USA PATRIOT Act, are
just the beginning of things that
have gone wrong in the last three
and-a-half years.
But Bush and his staff, though hor
rible, are not the only ones at fault. Af
ter Sept. 11, 2001,1 hid in my room,
listened to National Public Radio and
tried not to cry as one disaster after
another took its toll on the people of
our nation. I didn't know what to do,
so I pretty much did nothing. Oh, I
went to a couple protests and wrote a
couple stories, but mostly I just kept
doing the same things I had been do
ing before the world turned sideways.
Now it's different — I'm different.
I still don't know what to do, but I
know from my experience that doing
nothing is no longer an option.
Standing aside didn't do any good
three years ago, and I'm willing to bet
it won't do any good now.
The Iowa caucuses are coming up,
and I'd like to say that I know who I'm
going to support, but I don't. Dennis
Kucinich, the congressman from
Ohio, looks OK, but what can you re
ally tell from a couple interviews and
some sound bites on the "important
issues?" I do know that what's going
on can't continue, and it's up to all of
us to make sure it doesn't.
Contact Aimee Rudin, a columnist
at aimeerudin@dailyemerald.com.
Her opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
II Clark's campaign
rl is dead-on
f % and drawing
k attention of rivals
Presidential primary cam
_ j paigns are one of the most un
J derrated segments of the polit
^ <> ical process: They're a good
* way to bone up on which
prominent politician thinks what,
and they're fun to watch. (I'll put
down Mario Kart to soak in the latest
primary debate on C-SPAN on any
school night.)
And for the amateur poli-sciCQ
wonk, it's a rare opportunity to see
statesmen take potshots at their fellow
party members in a five-month one
party free-for-all.
Howard Dean dropped his least con
ventional bomblet to date just this week
"(Former Gen. Wesley Clark) is a
good guy," Dean explains, "but I tru
ly believe he is a Republican."
That Clark — the race's latecomer
— is drawing such sweeping barbs
from the arguable frontrunner (the
two are locked in a statistical dead
heat, according to many recent polls),
suggests that he's a serious contender,
and that he's doing something right.
That Dean's remark effectively paints
Clark as a moderate suggests that he's
doing something else right, too.
On many of today's hottest issues,
Clark is dead-on. As a responsible
moderate, he understands the impor
tance of diligently maintaining civil
liberties in the rush to introduce USA
PATRIOT Act-style anti-terrorism laws.
"I believe that law enforcement
needs all the tools necessary to deal
with the problems of terrorism," he
explained, "but I'm concerned that
the Patriot Act expands the authority
of government investigators too much
without sufficient judicial oversight."
The social planks Clark emphasizes
the most are the most important so
cial services, too: He calls for univer
sal health care coverage and expand
ed education funding.
Clark isn't the perfect candidate.
His grasp of economics is sufficient,
but his plans to hike taxes on the up
per class suggests that he'll fund prob
ably unnecessary programs (admit
tedly, this doesn't separate him much
from his inside-the-Beltway com
rades). Still, his economics promise to
be sounder than President Bush's.
(Hiking spending — often on pro
grams of dubious value — and then
slashing taxes should feel like a fidu
ciary no-no to fiscal conservatives and
first-year economics majors alike.)
Finally, Clark's extensive foreign
policy credentials promise an Apol
lonian approach to international rela
tions and problems.
I'm not registered as a Democrat —
or as member of any political party,
for that matter — so I won't vote in
the upcoming primary. But if you are,
vote for Wesley Clark.
Contact editorial editor Travis Willse
at traviswillse@dailyemerald.com.
His opinions do not necessarily
represent those of the Emerald.
The (un)scientific method
for selecting
a Democratic candidate
With the number of Democratic
candidates seeking presidential status
Turn to PRIMARY, page 3