read the Crimson!
As if to say "screw you Golis, you don't know me!", the Crimson today published some solid analysis today that deserves a read. Definitely check out the endorsement which, despite my prematurely expressed skepticism, is actually a very well reasoned piece of writing. Also, check out Alex Blankfein's news analysis piece on the shifting politics and debate, it covers a lot of what we've been talking about here for the last few days. The most important tid bit:As the campaign enters its second week, the proposals for social planning from the Haddock-Riley and Voith-Gadgil ticket have become more similar. Though Haddock-Riley began the campaign without any mention of a separate social programming board, they have since adopted this as part of their proposals.Funny, does that fit into any already established pattern (ignore the obviously wrong prediction and just read the second paragraph)?
Later today, I'll be writing a piece about why, despite all of this, I still have no freakin' idea who I'm voting for... (seriously!)
posted by andrew golis @ 10:31 AM
7 Comments:
In your haste to skip to the opinion section you seem to have overlooked the frontpage article titled, "Voith-Gadgil Staffer Encouraged Grimeland and Hadfield To Drop Out of UC Race" which details an attempt by a Voith/Gadgil staffer to bribe Magnus and Tom with:
-reimbursement for their campaign expenses
-"lunch in some nice restaurant" (which they offered to pay for, "biatch"
-everything Magnus and Tom propose
-and reinstatement on the UC
I'm confused as to why you have not yet talked about this trend in passing the buck, which seems to have become routine for the Voith/Gadgil campaign.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Although I did find the op-ed endorsing Voith interesting, I did not find Mr. Blankfein's article very objective. I especially found the editing done in choosing a title ("Haddock Slips From Top," page A8) particularly biased. There was no data to support the article's main assertion that momentum had been lost by the Haddock/Riley campaign. The argument hinged on unspecified people's opinions and two new endorsements of the Voith campaign, one of which was the Crimson's. To write that the Crimson's endorsement is more important than any other endorsement is not good journalism.
Post a Comment
<< Home