Liberals' Îblame everything on Republicans' habit misguided

When liberals use words like "moderate" and "centrist" to describe their candidates, one must always be careful and take that message with a grain of salt. Think about the author of the commentary titled, "Time to Let Democrats take the Wheel," by Kendrick Wilson. Mr. Wilson is a self-described environmental liberal; this admission justly makes his claim ÷ that candidates like Napolitano are "moderate" ÷ insignificant to people who are truly independent political thinkers. Getting a "moderate" rating from Wilson is like receiving one from Hillary Clinton or Ted Kennedy.

What his article really accomplishes is slash-and-burn politics, also known as "blame everything on Republicans." This was evident during the Florida primary elections when Janet Reno became angry that she lost the election to Bill McBride. Al Gore blamed the whole incident on Gov. Jeb Bush, saying, "If I had been governor of Florida during the 2000 election, I would have made sure that the same thing did not happen in 2002." Well, if only Gore had been a real leader, he might have carried his state and won the presidency. Democrats knew that Reno was in poor health and was only running on name recognition­ but it was a Republican's fault that the primary election was close.

As far as Arizona is concerned, Napolitano was part of the elected team working under Gov. Jane Hull who even Republicans do not approve of. Like Gore did in 2000 by distancing himself from the failed Clinton legacy, Napolitano seems to think she can distance herself the same way. I can tell you right now that the differences between Hull and Napolitano are few and far between. Salmon, however, gives Arizona an opportunity to take his congressional knowledge of balancing the budget to Arizona. What liberals like Wilson hate about Salmon is that he is a religious man. They have already been attacking Salmon in Phoenix with adds like "vote moron."

To say Democrats protect the Bill of Rights, with their constant attacks on religion, censorship of conservative literature, bearing arms and protecting chickens over unborn babies is real stretch of the imagination and highly condemnable. People like Wilson realize that Republican election turnout is higher in Arizona, and know that the Legislature and governorship will probably be taken by the Republican Party. If hippie tree-huggers want something else, then move to the People's Republic of New England.

Charles A. Peterson
history junior

Coach Mackovic needs to get with the program, lose the tie

As an Arizona alumnus, I write this letter. What is happening to our football team? Bring back Tomey ÷ well, almost. Granted, this game (vs. Wisconsin) was a non-conference game, but every game does matter.

Coach Mackovic appeared to totally give up on the game after Wisconsin scored its last touchdown. There was still a lot of time on the clock ÷ enough time to try to score more points. Then the players appeared to develop a "who cares" attitude ÷ and why not? Their coach had already given up on them. He, of all people, needs to keep up the fight, and the intensity. Get with it, coach! (Oh, and lose the tie ÷ it clashes with the genre.)

Thanks to the Arizona Daily Wildcat for letting me voice my opinion.

Lorna K. Fortner
Class of 1975

Likins, in failing to seek student input, reveals his Îelite' attitude

In her letter to the editor in Friday's Wildcat, Janet Bingham, vice president for university advancement, took issue with the Wildcat's use of the word "elite." The UA is "far from being elite," Dr. Bingham claims, because it is a land-grant university and Arizona's flagship university, the core values of which are "leadership, excellence, and service." Leaving aside the fact that her description of UA is not at all inconsistent with it being an "elite" institution, I am more concerned that Dr. Bingham failed to notice something that can only qualify as elite: Neither Dr. Bingham nor President Likins has openly solicited the opinions of the students.

Dr. Bingham writes in her letter that "President Peter Likins, in consultation with the provost, the Cabinet, deans, faculty advisory councils and many others," has begun the discussion of UA's redefinition. While she acknowledges that the discussion has only just begun and that (hopefully) "thousands of other discussions will ensue," Dr. Bingham never once mentions students as possible, if not necessary, participants in any of those discussions. Given that the mission of the Office of University Advancement is "to enhance communications and foster relationships between the university and its constituents," and given that students are certainly a constituent of the UA, I find Dr. Bingham's omission telling.

Unfortunately, I cannot explain away Dr. Bingham's silence regarding student participation as the absent-minded mistake of an errant UA representative; on the contrary, Dr. Bingham's omission seems to reflect an unspoken university policy. In none of the articles about UA's redefinition that I have been able to find has the UA student body been mentioned as a constituent, a stakeholder or a participant in the process. In an ABC Bulletin dated Sept. 17 (ABC Bulletins "convey the thoughts and feelings of the UA president about matters that are fundamental to the character and culture of the University of Arizona"), Dr. Likins writes that he has consulted with "academic department heads, the college deans, the Strategic Planning and Budget Advisory Committee, the Academic Council, the University Council, the Faculty Senate, the Alumni Association Board of Directors and the Cabinet." But, like Dr. Bingham, he does not mention students.

Even if there are student representatives on any of these bodies, why did Dr. Likins not specifically mention ASUA, GPSC or the student body generally? What ÷ I ask Dr. Bingham and President Likins ÷ could be more elite?

Mark A. Rivera
classics graduate student