A Final Word on the Debate

This column was written in respose to the second College Republican/College Democrat debate, which seemed to get a little out of hand. Each group was told to choose a representative to voice their side of the story. I wrote about the recent tension that had plagued the two groups; their representative chose to talk about abortion instead.

A final word on the debate - Opinions


When I became active in campus politics about two years ago, I wasn't delusional about it. I realized that labeling myself a "Republican" on this campus was not going to make me popular or well liked. And even now, although I've been called the "most hated person on campus" on more than one occasion, I wouldn't trade it for anything. As College Republican President, I have been more than willing to work with people and organizations whose views differ from mine, which is more than I can say for the College Democrats.

At the end of last year, when the College Democrats began to get organized, Jonathan Rosamond (their president at the time) made a point of contacting me. We discussed having our two groups work together in the future, to illustrate the sort of cooperation we'd like to see between the two parties within our government. This is where we first had the idea that a debate between the two groups could educate other students in issues that were important to both parties. Of course, the debates did not become a reality until this year, and by then, the CDs had chosen a much more liberal leader. Although I can't recall a single time when I was anything less than polite to him, the new CD President made it very clear that he did not like me, and had no qualms about personally attacking me, publicly.

A few weeks ago, members of both organizations met to decide on a debate topic for the first CR/CD debate of the semester. We eventually decided to debate life and death issues (abortion, stem cell research, death penalty, and assisted suicide), thanks to compromise on both sides. But that is where compromised ended. About a week later, the Carolinian printed the front page article insinuating the CRs and CDs were arguing over changes made to the Anti-Discrimination Policy.

This whole ordeal baffled myself and the other Republicans, as we had no idea we were supposedly feuding with the Democrats. But it only got worse from there. CR Ryan Radford designed different fliers for the event, and one, par the CD's request, featured a pregnant woman symbolizing the topic of abortion. CR Vice-President Daryn Iwicki and I took a break from our meeting to have the CDs approve the debate fliers. Upon entering the room where their meeting was being held, we were told to leave, cursed at, and then physically forced to exit. Considering that the CDs had claimed to have "no reservations about allowing a member of the Republicans... to join their meetings" in that week's article, we found their actions to be extremely hypocritical.

The Democrats made it clear that they would have us written up for an honor code violation if we posted the advertisements with their name on them, even though we had only put a pregnant woman on the flier because they told us to. Because we had done pretty much all the work for the debate, I told them if they wanted to change the abortion fliers, they could; the Republicans would stick with the already-approved, more generic fliers. Later, we were approach by CD Sam Bickett, who had made new posters for abortion, and when we tried to point out things we didn't like, he told us to "get over it."

This all culminated the night of the actual debate. Because the CRs had been told we were free to make our own advertisements without the CDs' name on them, we spent time and money creating copies of pink and blue baby feet to advertise the debate. We taped the footprints on the floor near the debate room, in a pattern that showed them "walking" up the stairs to the door. No sooner had we taped them on the floor, when Bickett came through and removed every one. When we protested that what he was doing was a destruction of property, he got about two inches from CR Iwicki's face and began to yell obscenities at the top of his lungs.

Whether you choose to admit it or not, it's incredibly hard to be conservative on this campus. When the three of us sat in front of that crowded room and made our views known, we knew that we were going to be criticized and ridiculed. The majority of that crowd came in agreeing with the Democrats, and nothing we could ever have said would have changed their minds. You can say what you want to about Republicans, but we stood by our views under the worst circumstances, and we were able to do so without shouting and cursing at those with differing viewpoints. So you tell me: who really won here?

I was later forced to retract the part of my statement which said we were physically forced out of the CD meeting. I will not post that retraction here, because I stand by what I said originally. I only issued a retraction to help mend ties between the two groups (and in part due to a "suggestion" from the administration), and now that I am no longer associated with that silliness, I do not feel the need to cover up their hypocrisies.

Working Together for the Future of America

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Working together for the future of America - Opinions

I received a lot of good feedback on my article from a few weeks ago concerning bipartisanship. It seems as though everyone is in favor of seeing the two parties work together; apparently the national and state parties just haven't gotten the memo yet.

I'm not sure how many college students actually keep up with the North Carolina State Legislature's doings, but it's hilarious how juvenile these grown men (and a few women) can get when it comes to their political stance. Republicans refuse to compromise with Democrats (and vice versa), to the point that nothing ever gets accomplished. The state Democrats actually had to wait until one Republican was on his honeymoon and the other was out sick to get the lottery bill passed through. Some see this as dirty politics, but most just see it as necessary.

It gets even dirtier on the national level. When President Bush first nominated Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Republicans everywhere praised his good judgment. And then they realized that the Democrats liked her, so they had to find something wrong with her. Miers ended up withdrawing from her nomination, most likely due to criticism she was receiving within the Republican Party.

The only thing that gives me any hope for democracy is the new generation of political leaders. The only reason I haven't completely given up politics is the determination I have in me that I will be one of the people who changes the country for the better.

Think about it. Most of the people in power who refuse to compromise or even discuss change are of the older generation. The majority of young people that you ask aren't going to see any problem with gay marriage, but seeing as how we're not the majority in this country (at least, not when it comes to voting), we simply have to wait our turn.

Take for example, the College Republicans and the College Democrats at UNCG. Sure, this is politics on a much less significant scale, but politics nonetheless. Although both groups represent two complete opposites of the America public, they manage to get along just fine, even when it comes to political discussions. Sure, there are arguments about the basics - the War on Terror, Social Security, taxes - but nothing like the juvenile arguments that seem to go on in the state legislature, or in Congress.

Perhaps it has something to do with the idealistic nature of youth. Even those of us who consider ourselves to be Republican still tend to see the world through rose-colored glasses at some time or another. I personally refuse to let go of the belief that things are going to change in the future: those older politicians who refuse to bend to anything are going to give way to a new group of politicians, those who grew up listening to the ridiculous partisan arguments of both sides, and who are willing to work together to make this country a better place for everyone.

If you don't believe me, maybe you should see it for yourself. The College Republicans and the College Democrats, in a bi-partisan event sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Political Awareness Club, are going to be doing a series of debates during this academic year. The first one is a debate on foreign affairs, and will be held in Graham 212 at 7p.m. on Thursday, November 3. It's a good way for both sides to get their views out in a friendly manner, and it's also a good way for students to have their questions answered about what each party really thinks about the war in Iraq and other things of that nature.

I personally think it's great that both sides are working together for this event. I have enough faith in these two groups to believe that it will be a friendly debate, and that there will be very few fist-fights, unlike Congress. I'd encourage everyone at UNCG who is interested in politics, concerned about our position in Iraq, or just curious about where a debate between these two groups might lead, to attend. You just might learn something you didn't know, or maybe you'll change your mind about something you already believed. Or maybe you'll see me get punched. Either way, it's a good time.

Vote for my Daddy, He's Rich!

THE RIGHT ANGLE: Vote for My Daddy, He's Rich! - Opinions

Last week, Cate Edwards, John Edwards' daughter visited UNCG to talk about her father's campaign. Now, if you're like me, you probably saw fliers around campus announcing her arrival and thought, "Who is Cate Edwards?" And then you kept reading the flier, which eventually answered your question: Nobody.

When it comes down to it, Cate Edwards is little more than a spoiled little rich girl living off Daddy's money. Why was she going around answering questions about her father's campaign? Another good question! NO ONE KNOWS! My father is an accountant, but I don't travel around lecturing people on how to correctly do their tax returns.

After attending her speech, I found myself rather disappointed that I had missed my political science class for such fluff. Online columns that I looked up later lamented the fact that Cate was only invited to three North Carolina Universities, but the truth is, maybe they wanted to give their time and money to something better. Something that's maybe, I don't know, interesting and/or educational? Maybe something that would fill the entire auditorium? Don't let the TV clips fool you: they were frantically jamming kids in front of the news cameras so Cate and the College Democrats wouldn't look bad.

Ben Byrd, the president of the College Democrats, introduced Cate, touting her many "accomplishments" such as graduating from Princeton and being involved in her sorority, Pi Beta Phi. After listening to her speech, I lost all respect for a Princeton degree. I hope that everyone who scoffs at Bush's Yale degree was in our EUC listening to Princeton's finest last Monday, because it was quite painful listening to her stumble over big words like "convention."

Cate spoke to us about why we should vote for the Kerry/Edwards ticket in 2004, but in her attacks against Bush, she left out some interesting facts. She told us about how many people had lost their jobs during the past four years, but failed to mention that our current president inherited this economy from President Clinton, the Democrat's golden boy. You'd think that someone with a degree in Political Economics would know this and would also know that, thanks to the Bush administration, the economy has been rising in more recent times. I'm disappointed that she forgot to tell us this. She also mentioned that health care premiums had risen, but failed to remind us that, as a trial lawyer, her father had a HUGE hand in causing those premiums to rise. I wonder if "hypocrite" has any meaning to her.

My favorite part was the question/answer session. The first two people to stand up didn't seem to understand the meaning of the word "question" and instead preached at the crowd. The first woman ranted about Bush trying to reinstate the draft but neglected to inform the audience that the draft legislation making its way through Congress had been proposed by two Democratic senators, both of whom are staunch Kerry supporters. The second "question" was a rant about health care premiums going up, and I was once again disappointed in Cate for not setting the man straight.

But then the real questions began, and Cate got a chance to let her intelligence really shine. One person asked if she was discouraged by Bush's lead in the polls, and she stated her distrust in polls, which is understandable. She talked about how Bush had gotten a nice lead due to his convention, but some of the more recent polls she had seen had put Kerry in the lead. I spent an hour looking up different polls later that day, and not a one of them showed Kerry in the lead. Looks like Daddy's money can't buy everything.

Another person asked what she thought her father's most popular speaking point was, and after hmming and uhhing for a minute, she replied, "I don't have all of my father's talking points memorized." Are you kidding me? Okay, you're traveling around to different universities trying to rally votes for the Democratic ticket, and you don't even know your father's platform? Could you not just SAY something??

Cate, please do the world a favor and end your political career here and now. You're obviously not able to think on the spot. Every time you were asked a question, you'd pause and cock your head to the side. I mean, that's adorable when my puppy does it, but scary when someone I'm supposed to be taking political advice from does it. Let's face the facts: Daddy's money might buy you some nice things, including that pretty little Princeton degree, but it's obvious from your "speech" that money can't buy miracles. Next time, if he's that hard up for votes, let Daddy do his own campaigning. You can sit behind him and smile; that's really what you do best.