OPINION & EDITORIAL
Herald unfair to Mikolajczak
Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.
Also by Letters to the Editor:
- UW needs dissenting voices (February 14, 2008)
- There will be blood... donations (February 13, 2008)
- Audience responds to debate (February 13, 2008)
- Clegg no economist, just misguided (February 11, 2008)
- Herald blind on snow (February 11, 2008)
Related Stories:
- Audience responds to debate (February 13, 2008)
- UW needs dissenting voices (February 14, 2008)
- Reps, Dems snuggle with each other, status quo (February 13, 2008)
- The public forum brought center stage (February 11, 2008)
- College Democrats fire back (September 14, 2007)
by Letters to the Editor
Thursday, February 14, 2008
As I watched the debate Monday night between College Democrats Chair Oliver Kiefer and College Republicans Chair Sara Mikolajczak, all I could think about was how pointed the questions were and how they blatantly favored the Democrats. While it has been commented on by some writers in The Badger Herald that the debate was a landslide victory for the Democrats, they have failed to report on the points that Ms. Mikolajczak clearly won — such as abortion, taxes and general knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.
It also must be mentioned that the majority of attendees were, in fact, Democrats, who will of course say their side won and ignore any good points that were made by the Republicans. It seems to me the entire debate was a setup, a ploy to make Republicans look bad on a campus where the majority of students and faculty are liberal Democrats.
Never mind that Ms. Mikolajczak and several other College Republicans, myself included, spent the weekend at the Conservative Political Action Conference, where Ms. Mikolajczak herself spoke. Never mind that Ms. Mikolajczak shared the stage with some of the most important and influential leaders of our country, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Sen. John McCain, to name just a few.
Never mind that her speech drew a standing ovation from a packed house, and several noted people commented on her speaking skills, such as Patrick Coyle, vice president of the Young America’s Foundation, and Stacy McCain, the assistant national editor of the Washington Times, to name a few. To attack her speaking skills is absolutely preposterous, considering she has spoken in front of far more important people than the students of the University of Wisconsin.
Just because the views of the conservative Republican Party are not agreed with on the campus does not give the liberal Democrats the right to disrespect them.
Instead of acting like immature children who do not want to listen to their teachers, maybe the Democrats should take a page out of the Republican playbook and start to respect and listen to those who disagree with them. We are all young adults on this campus, and we are some of the nation’s brightest, so it is time to start treating each other with some respect.
Kristen Wall
UW sophomore,
economics and business
klwall@wisc.edu
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 5:43am):
oh please, as if republicans respect what the democrats say. it goes both ways kristen, get your story straight
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 5:56am):
AND SO WELL WRITTEN, TOO!
You have a bright future.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 9:45am):
" how pointed the questions were and how they blatantly favored the Democrats"
Good training for life in the real world where the media is tilted wayyy to the left.
"respect and listen to those who disagree with them"
Sorry, never be in the Liberal playbook.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 9:55am):
Questions that favor the Democrats? You mean the ones that were about what's happening in the country today?
Your representative could not debate and resorted to snarky one-liners that didn't really make sense.
If you had a decent representative, you would have held your own. Too bad.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 10:11am):
saying Sara is a great speaker because she drew a standing ovation from a crowd of Republicans is just as asinine as saying she lost the debate because the crowd at that event was composed of Democrats.
i fail to see how Democrats are acting like children in any of this.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 10:25am):
"...maybe the Democrats should take a page out of the Republican playbook and start to respect and listen to those who disagree with them."
You mean like how your homegirl Sara Mikolajczak called Doyle "crazy" just a few inches above this article in the printed edition? That doesn't really sound like she respects or listens to him.
Greg Mawer (February 14, 2008 @ 12:01pm):
I wonder, what exactly the frazzled College Republicans were expecting? Perhaps they expected this exceedingly liberal campus to listen, enraptured by their leader's talking points, until they were given the opportunity to become registered Republicans themselves. No, probably not. It should still come as no surprise that the debate turned into something resembling a circus of liberal bias. If the College Republicans feel so wronged by the outcome, maybe they should stick to speaking "in front of far more important people than the students of the University of Wisconsin." Remind me to show up and boo you, Ms. Wall, the next time you decide to speak in front of MY schoolmates.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 12:26pm):
You make no mention of the points that were brought up by either person during the debate, or what comments were made at the conference.
Just because someone speaks at a conference where everyone is like minded doesn't mean that they should get a standing ovation at a debate here in Madison.
And if you are calling saying that the conservative Herald set up the Republican speaker, I would hate to see your comments if the event was hosted by the Cardinal.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 12:34pm):
"they have failed to report on the points that Ms. Mikolajczak clearly won — such as abortion, taxes and general knowledge of the U.S. Constitution.
It also must be mentioned that the majority of attendees were, in fact, Democrats, who will of course say their side won and ignore any good points that were made by the Republicans."
I find this passage odd. Why should a reader think they the writer is not "of course" saying that her side won? She has stated that she is a College Republican but somehow her view of the debate is not skewed while a democratic view is.
Also if you want someone's respect, It's not a great idea to call them "immature children who do not want to listen to their teachers." I don't see where that falls under "taking a page from the Republican playbook and respecting and listening to those who disagree with them."
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 1:34pm):
I'm a conservative, and it was clear to me that Oliver won. He was more prepared with stats and facts to back up his statements,and Sara was not. Sara made me groan a few times, especially when she said that part of the reason we're in Iraq is to "protect our oil." The administration has never endorsed this idea, and I don't know why Sara would.
I was also disappointed when she talked about outsourcing being good because it helps the economies of the countries that our jobs are going to. Way to give conservatives a bad name.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 2:48pm):
It isn't that Democrats and Liberals don't know anything. It's just that so much of what they 'know' isn't true. As an example, consider the 'qualifications' of their front running candidate Barack Hussein Obama.
If the Democrats collectively decide to support a presidential candidate with
1)no significant State or Federal experience in managing economies,
2)no experience in International Affairs,
3)no Military experience,
4)no Business experience, and
5)no practical experience as a Senator (other than 6 years of running for President)
that is their choice, albiet a poor one.
What Barack Hussien Obama lacks in experience and common sense, he makes up for in vacuous 'American Idol' appeal and rhetoric without substantive support. That is poor qualification for President of the United States of America by any standard, even a Liberals.
While I thoroughly disagree with most of the socialist positions espoused by Democrats and their candidates et.al., I'll defend to the death their right to say them. God Bless America, her service men and women, and the unappreciative citizens they defend.
Respectfully,
An Educated, Observant, and Pragmatic Conservative
Emily Schumann (February 14, 2008 @ 4:40pm):
Dear Anonymous, how powerful can you really feel if you lack the courageousness to sign your name? You must not stand too strongly behind your rebutal if you feel the need to mask your identity. I commend you on your efforts to form an opinion on such topic, and I encourage you to further develop ideas that you can actually wholly support.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 5:36pm):
"While I thoroughly disagree with most of the socialist positions espoused by Democrats and their candidates et.al., I'll defend to the death their right to say them. God Bless America, her service men and women, and the unappreciative citizens they defend."
I don't see how any of it is socialist, no one's proposing collective farms, collective ownership of factories, or significant redistribution of wealth. Hell, they can hardly be called Social Democrats in the traditional sense. And historically, socialists and anyone further to the left have never had the right to those views, that's why they were routinely publicly harassed, blacklisted, imprisoned, deported, and sometimes killed. Way to try to wrap your name-calling in a flag of ignorance. I bet you have at least 20 "support our troops" ribbons on your pickup truck.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 5:47pm):
"I was also disappointed when she talked about outsourcing being good because it helps the economies of the countries that our jobs are going to. Way to give conservatives a bad name."
This simply displays your inability to grasp the concept of globalization. In countries with a comparative advantage in the manufacture of certain goods, it makes sense in the world economy to produce there.
If, for instance, we were to halt outsourcing (which we can't, because it is the producer's prerogative to outsource) then the price of goods would increase (inflation) and unions would cry for wage increases forcing companies to lay off workers.
As you can see, in the short run, a worker being laid off as a result of outsourcing seems bad, but in the long run it keeps goods cheap and foreign workers employed. In the long run, not outsourcing results in the same short run effect of a layoff with the added consequence of price inflation.
So please, when calling yourself a conservative, know why you disagree with something before saying Sara gave "conservatives a bad name."
- Jeremy Wick
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 6:08pm):
I've had two discussion classes with Sara, and I've never heard her come up with an original thought. I was shocked when I found out she was chair of the College Republicans. I thought that at least at a university like this one, the Republicans would have intelligent leaders, but I was wrong.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 6:12pm):
Anon 2:48, let's look at George Bush in the context of your five requirements, shall we?
1)no significant State or Federal experience in managing economies,
Bush was the governor of Texas before he ran for president. In Texas, the lieutenant governor actually runs things; the governor is more of a figure head. So Bush had no state or federal experience managing economies. And if he ran a business the way he's run our economy, he'd be in prison for defrauding investors. But we'll come back to that in a minute.
2)no experience in International Affairs,
When he ran for president, George Bush couldn't even find Canada on a map.
3)no Military experience,
George Bush's military experience consisted of going AWOL to volunteer for a political campaign in Alabama.
4)no Business experience, and
George Bush had plenty of business experience. Was it three businesses he led to financial ruin, or am I forgetting some?
5)no practical experience as a Senator (other than 6 years of running for President)
George Bush had no experience whatsoever as a senator.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 6:30pm):
Kristen, in this issue nobody will be pronounced winner. However, I am very impressed at how maturely you handled yourself in your opinion article. Yes, you are right, that many of the claims that were unfair towards Sarah. Also, many of your points were very valid and you had a well-written article. Being a democrat my self, I have to say that even though I do not support your political views, you are a fantastic human.
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 6:49pm):
So Obama has less experience than Bush? And we should expect better results because he's a wonderful speech reader?
Anonymous (February 14, 2008 @ 7:20pm):
Ahhh, another mindless follower. Don't worry Kristen, you'll figure things out once you get to know her better.
Kendrick Wall (February 14, 2008 @ 8:07pm):
Is the name calling really called for? Knowing the writer quite well as in she is indeed my younger sister i can say with bias that she is one of the most intellegent people that I know in these aspects. To attack her as a person for feeling that one of her friends was unfairly treated is nothing more than childish. She is a very well spoken, passionate young lady and has an amazingly potential for her life. Those of you that are bashing her on a web comment board without the courage to post your name should be ashamed. You will hear her name agian in your lives, and when you do don't be supprised to find yourself thinking "I wish I was her..."
~A Very Proud Big Brother
Kendrick W. Wall
Add a comment
We welcome your thoughts, but please keep your feedback thoughtful, on-topic and respectful. Offensive language, personal attacks, or irrelevant comments may be deleted.
Login...
Not registered? Sign up now.
It's quick, free, and the email address you provide will not be sold or solicited.
