Loading ...
The election may be over as of this writing, but the number of pussy editorials by college newspapers will live on in infamy.
The Stanford Daily Editorial Board, which gave a no endorsement for Prop 83 (the sex offenders one):
bq. “we couldn’t cover every measure in the election, we attempted to focus on those we felt to be most controversial and relevant to the student body.”
Our heads are almost raw from all the scratching trying to figure out whether Stanford produces sex offenders or whether Stanford produces children needing protection from Stanford students.
At Yale, an even number of seats on the editorial board keeps The Yale Daily News from actually endorsing a candidate for the Connecticut senate seat. [ "Ivygate":http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/11/ydn_struggles_with_concept_of_endorsement.html ]
The “Arizona Daily Wildcat”:http://wildcat.arizona.edu/media/storage/paper997/news/2006/11/01/Opinions/2006-Elections.Wildcat.Opinions.Board.Endorsements-2414409.shtml?norewrite200611080254&sourcedomain=wildcat.arizona.edu avoids real concerns openly, honestly:
bq. “We did not base our endorsements on candidates’ stances on moral issues – those are decisions that this board believes strongly must be made on a personal level.”
Issues, guys. You’re supposed to take on the issues!
Comments:
No comments yet.
