4
Friday, October 23, 1992
OPINION UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
IN OUR OPINION
Student Senate's actions won't lower drinking age
During any given year, Student Senate takes an abundant amount of criticism with relatively little credit. This shouldn't surprise anyone.
"If they were worth a dime they would be solving all of the problems" seems to be the mentality.
for in this day in age, if there are any problems or imperfections in a system, the governing body receives the blame.
This is an unfair expectation.
The reality is that Student Senate has limited power. With only a veto from either David Ambler, vice chancellor for student affairs, or Chancellor Gene Budig, any bill can be killed permanently. Consequently besides disbursing student funds, Student Senate is forced to spend its time and effort on less tangible lower profile issues.
Senate also is in a very unique position. Whether or not you believe they are a representative of the University as a whole, they are the only leadership we have. Therefore, they should be able to go to bat for us as students to represent our interests.
Such is the case in Student Senate's recent efforts passing a resolution concerning the federal government's role in establishing the national drinking age. Started and circulated by the student government at Duke University, this resolution attempts to show student dissatisfaction with the way the federal government has arm-twisted the states into adopting a 21-year-old drinking age.
The resolution was passed late Wednesday night at KU. If approved by the administration, it would then be sent to presidential candidates Ross Perot, George Bush and Bill Clinton in an attempt to get the status quo changed. However, this would, of course, take congressional action, as well.
This letter certainly is not enough. Change never comes easy. Students and Student Senate alike must realize that this resolution is a nice start, but if real change is desired, much more work needs to be done.
We must convince Washington that we don't just have an opinion on the subject, but that we truly care about it. There is a big difference. Everyone has an opinion, but those who are willing to take action are the ones that get noticed.
First and foremost, we must make the drinking age a legitimate issue through organized protest. Student Senate is in a perfect position to lead this charge if students will back them. Then, once it is an issue, we must show that we care at the ballot box. In the end, that is the only way to get a politician's attention.
Students have long been assailed as all talk and no action. Talk is cheap. Action costs. If we aren't willing to pay and give Washington a reason to change their opinion, we will never be heard.
JEFF REYNOLDS FOR THE EDITORIAL BOARD
INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Reagan's tactics changed election process forever
There was something uncanny about three presidential candidates, as they locked horns in front of millions of television viewers in the United States and around the world.
out in front of the TV lights.
Though each of them was trying to sell himself, it became obvious that most of what they said represented not simply their own thoughts, but the planning and analysis of dozens of unseen aides and experts, who had briefed their men carefully before they stepped
It was hard to resist the feeling that these were not real people talking, but actors delivering carefully crafted lines, with which they had little or nothing to do.
Could it be that Ronald Reagan, the ex-actor turned Teflon president, really did change the occupant of the Oval Office from prince moover to prime mummer?
Arab News
Jiddah, Saudi Arabia
Clinton will not be able to keep campaign vows
KANSANSTAFF
With two weeks to go in the campaign, it is looking as if the party of Jimmy Carter, Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis is finally going to be able to regain the presidency.
Bill Clinton, the head of a so called "new breed" of more moderate Democrats, has run a kick campain, built up a large, diverse coalition, and is poised for victory on election day. But, what can we expect from our government with a Clinton Administration?
First, we must look beyond Clinton's political promises in an effort to see how his agenda will realistically play out in Washington. To understand this, we must tap into what motivates Bill Clinton and thus his decision making. And the answer to that is re-election.
SCOTT HANNA Business mentors
It doesn't take a political scientist to see that Bill Clinton is a career politician. Nor do you have to be particularly acute to realize that he does have a tendency to try to appeal to everyone, all of the time. That is why his coalition is so large. All this in addition to the fact that he will be one of the youngest presidents in history, makes it easy to see that Clinton will want to leave his mark on the presidency. To do this he must win a second term.
The most successful way that he will be able to achieve this is by keeping his large, diverse coalition alive. This is very much the same challenge that Ronald Reagan faced after his election in 1980. But it is a difficult thing to do.
Reagan's coalition was brought together by his trickle-down economic philosophy. It is a philosophy based
BILLLEIBENGOOD
Retail sales manager
raise their taxes unless it was absolutely necessary. But many independent sources have questioned the calculations of Clinton's plan, in that the revenues from his taxes on the rich won't cover all of his new programs. So when the money runs out, Clinton will be left with two choices: cut the programs, or start taxing more. His answer will be calculated by his motivations.
Which choice will get him re-elected? Which one will keep his coalition intact?
Cutting the programs negatively affects his coalition, so it is obvious what will happen. He will keep trying to soak the wealthy. But also understand the power of these wealthy individuals. It is their money that gets Congress re-elected. They will shift the tax burden right down the line to end up in the laps of those middle and upper-middle class families who supported Clinton under the assumption that he would help them.
Business manage
Bill Clinton is a wolf in sheep's clothing. He may not even know it, but political reality will force him to be. He may think he is a new breed of Democrat, but the Congress is still primarily made up of the same tax-and-spend Democrats that backed Dukakis, Mondale and Carter. The only thing that could keep him from folding to the left would be rock solid conviction and character.
Unfortunately, these are the two things that Bill Clinton has not come close to displaying during this election season.
Jeff Reynolds is a Hutchinson senior majoring in political science.
JEANNE HINES
BILL SKEET, Technology coordinator
Editors
Graduate student
Now Clinton faces the same challenge. But it is the left side of the ideological spectrum that is the heart of Clinton's coalition. The poor, the uneducated, and the working class. But there are also many middle and upper-middle class supporters on the Clinton bandwagon. It is those individuals that must understand the implications of a Clinton Administration.
Business Staff
Campus sales staff  Angela Cleowenger
Regional sales mgrs  Kelsea Terkilip
National sales mgr  Brian Wilkes
Co-op sales mgr  Amy Stumbo
Production mgrs  Brad Bron
Clinton Caxton
Marketing director  Ashley Lungford
Creative director
Classified auditor
Judith Standlew
Asst. Managing    Alimee Brainard
News        Alexander Blohmholm
Editorial    Stephen Martino
Campus       Gayle Osterberg
Sports      Shelly Solon
Photo        Justin Knapp
Features     Cody Holt
Graphics     Sean Tevls
JEFF REYNOLDS
This letter is in reference to Eliza beth Arnold's Oct. 14 letter.
JEANNE HINES Sales and marketing adviser
LETTER TO THE EDITOR
ERIC NELSON
Editor
around tremendous cuts in taxes, especially on the wealthy, in order to stimulate investment and growth. But at the heart of trickle-down is spending cuts. Reagan's coalition was extremely large and he didn't want the cuts to affect any of the members of that coalition. Consequently, Reagan went after entitlements and programs for the poor. But the Democrat-controlled Congress would have none of that. Gridlock was the result. In the end, they chose to cut nothing, which is why the deficit grew so large, so fast.
Last Monday night, Clinton virtually assured all U.S. citizens who make less than $200,000 that he would not
**Letters should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 200 words. They must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. Writers affiliated with the University of Kansas must include class and homework, or faculty or staff position.**
**Guest columns should be typed, double-spaced and fewer than 700 words. The writer will be**
The Kansas reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They can be mailed or brought to the Kansas newroom, 111 Staffer Flint Hall.
Unfortunately for you, Ms. Arnold,
what you did was make yourself
look less like a graduate student and
more like a freshman than Scott
William. You're implication that
President Bush, (or was it Quayle's)
brain is a vegetable. "race relations
suck." "you're dama straight," "run
STAFF COLUMNIST
TOM BLEEN
General manager, news adviser
GREG FARMER Managing editor
TOM EBLEN
So, while you're on a role. Ms. Arnold, look at the facts and try to present yourself in the educated manner a graduate student should
Finally, how do you know that Scott's daddy is so generous?
William Gist Leawood junior
are and should be separated. However, it is ignorant to think that religion does not or should not have any bearing on people's political opinions.
to get your Kleenex," and you're projerk, " were all well articulated, mature comments.
More importantly, if you want national health care, why haven't your liberal friends that have controlled the House and Senate since 1986 come up with anything? Tell us, if the United States is nothing to brag about, how come more people immigrate here than any other country on this planet?
And yes, the Bible and government
Loco Locals
STAFF COLUMNIST
MARK COATNEY Presidential campaign trail is a grueling trek
George Bush makes more than $200,000 a year. Bill Clinton draws $35,000 for his duties as governor of Arkansas. These two men are paid by the taxpayers to do a job, to govern the United States and the state of Arkansas. My question in this election year is simple.
What are we the taxpayers getting for our money?
How much actual governing has Bill Clinton done in Arkansas this year when he's been campaigning constantly since February? What has George Bush done in the last six months besides go to photo-opportunities?
In what other job could you take a year off to apply for another job and still get paid for it? Do these people really do so little that they can be out to lunch for months at a time and it doesn't really matter? If so, why do we pay these people in the first place? If the lieutenant governor or the vice president can hold down the fort without the big guy there, then why not just make them the boss?
No other country in the world takes as long as we do to elect public officials on the national level. In this age of CNN and 24 hour news cycles, why are our campaigns run at a 19th century pace? Did we really need to see them play the campaign with eating at little insus in New Hampshire nine months ago?
Admittedly, the long campaign does have the advantage of giving people like me something to write about. Is this what the government means by creating new jobs?
The campaign trail as it now stands is much too long. It should be a campaign footpath instead. Saying campaign trail gives rise to images to Bill and George, wearing dusters and 10 gallon hats, getting ready to punch them voter doggies from Texas to Dodge, from February to November. The image we need instead is of the candidates as tour guides on a short nature path.
No candidate has come up with any radically different position in the last six months. We might just as well have had the election in June as November for all the new information we haven't learned. Is there any reason at all why, in this age of rapid mass communication, the candidates can't present their positions in a shorter period of time, say three months? Of course not, and if we reduce the time someone spends campaigning we increase the time that person can spend governing, which is supposedly what we elected that person to do in the first place.
Why don't we just devote three months every four years to presidential campaigns and allow campaigning to only take place during this period? Do it during the summer. Everyone is on vacation then anyway, so the incumbent won't miss any work, and we, as taxpayers, will be getting more of our money's worth from our elected officials.
Of course, we don't want to be too hasty in demolishing this system. There are advantages to having an absentee governor, and Kansas may yet benefit from this.
Is it too early for Gov. Joan Finney to start her 1996 presidential bid?
Mark Coatney is a Unlwood graduate student malingoring in political science.
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ELECTION?
DON'T WORRY, WE
TALKED ABOUT IT FOR
A NEW MINUTE THIS
MORNING... NEXT