Daily did not include all parties in its debate

To the Daily:

Thursday’s article regarding the Michigan Daily-hosted
presidential debate, Debate airs views of all candidates
(10/27/04), made a critical error in stating that the debate
included student representatives from the Socialist Party. Joseph
Tanniru, who the article implied was representing the Socialist
Party, was in fact representing the Socialist Equality Party, an
entirely separate political party with a separate presidential
ticket. Equally as erroneous was the article’s claim that
“all (third-party candidates) got to speak their
piece.” No representatives from the Socialist Party
presidential ticket of Walter Brown and Mary Alice Herbert were
invited by the Daily to participate in the debate. Incidentally,
the Socialist Party presidential ticket is on the 2004 Michigan
ballot under the label of the now nationally defunct Natural Law
Party, whereas the candidates of the Socialist Equality Party did
not qualify for ballot access in Michigan this year. I sincerely
hope that the Daily will make a greater effort in the future to
present accurate information about third parties and that future
Michigan Daily-hosted debates will include representatives from all
candidates who wish to present their views to the University
community rather than an arbitrarily selected few.

Matt Erard

LSA sophomore

The letter writer is the chair of the Socialist Party of
Michigan and the Michigan coordinator of the Committee to Elect
Walter Brown president.


Kerry’s logic is faulty on the issue of

To the Daily:

So the Daily is endorsing John Kerry (Vote Kerry,
10/27/04). Surprised? You shouldn’t be, unless you
haven’t been reading its editorial page the last four years.
Of course, there isn’t anything wrong with this, as most
editorial pages across the nation feature a more
“progressive” slant. What I take issue with is some of
the content of the endorsement. The Daily’s praise of
Kerry’s reconciliation of his faith and issues like abortion
reflects a complete misunderstanding of the issue. Let’s put
Kerry’s logic to a test: If Kerry believes that human life
begins at conception (as he has said he does), then he opposes
abortion because he thinks that it ends this life. Now, if this is
Kerry’s genuine belief, and I have no reason to doubt that it
is, then he can’t take the standard middle ground position of
“being personally opposed, but not wanting the government to
legislate against it.” Why not? If you express Kerry’s
reason for personal opposition in context, it reduces to him
telling the public “I believe abortion takes the life of a
human being, and I don’t think the government should
legislate against that.” Put this way, Kerry’s debate
“reconciliation” not only looks unimpressive, but also
morally reprehensible.

Michael Saltsman

LSA senior

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.