Search

ARCHIVES
CONTACT US
WORLD NEWS

Don't attribute motive to candidates

To the editor,

My name is Dave Nelson and I am a recent alumnus of the University of Arizona. I must say I was slightly disappointed in Ms. Bapat's editorial regarding Senator Bradley and his "number one campaign tactic." Her message apparently rests upon the belief that she knows how Bill Bradley's mind works and what his political strategy is, but oddly concludes with a terse remark about honesty and applause due to the vice-president. This kind of logic is not nearly as banal or ridiculous as that of a political analyst on the "Today Show" (who by the way was not Bill Bradley, thus no statement made by him should be attributed towards the Senator) arguing about indecisiveness and French fries. Yet the fundamental flaw of the argument is one of familiarity. Ms. Bapat suggests she is aware of VP Gore's apparent "evolution" and can thus judge it an acceptable and laudable action. Unless you have sat down with the man, talked to him, or even heard him speak on his position on specific issues (not simply read the abbreviated passages in papers or sound bytes on evening news) how can you claim to know what either the senator or the vice president will do or say about anything? (I cite "Bradley, of course, would argue ...")

The point of this response is to alert students that while they may support one candidate or another with their vote, such support, or conversely aspersions, on the character of disliked candidates is nothing more than adherence to the political platitudes espoused by all candidates on why they are a "better person" than another. Vote your conscience, but don't claim to "know" what any of the seven men in the running for our executive office believe.

Dave Nelson

BA History '99