Editorial:

Our endorsements

Published Oct. 30, 2008

PRESIDENT: Barack Obama

Sen. Barack Obama has consistently pledged his will for change, and we believe if he takes office, change is what we'll get. And after the chain of mistakes during President Bush's time in office, change is what we need. Even though Sen. John McCain actually acted like a maverick about five or six years ago, he's now much more loyal to the GOP and has lost much of his independent, bipartisan nature - if we voted McCain, we'd end up with more of the same.

Plus, Obama has reached out for the youth vote possibly more than any other presidential candidate in history. He's made it a priority to make sure the voices of young voters are heard, and record voter registration has occurred on college campus across the nation. Howard Dean, Joe Biden and Obama have all visited Columbia to encourage and legitimize the importance of the youth vote. Obviously, they care. It's true that he doesn't have as much political experience as McCain, but that disadvantage is vastly outweighed by the poor judgment McCain chose in his selection of running mate Gov. Sarah Palin. When it comes to who'd be a better second-in-command, Biden trumps Palin, hands down.

And when it comes to the issues, we are with Obama - his plans for education are more comprehensive, and his health care proposal is much more appealing to us as newly graduating college students. Because many of us will soon be off our parents' insurance and will be entering an uncertain job market, we'll need a plan to keep us insured. Obama's platform means that we'd have that. Obama also has more international support, and we could use a positive boost in our relationship with foreign nations.

9TH U.S. HOUSE: Judy Baker

In the 9th District, the decision was pretty simple for us. Baker has shown through her past work and her promises for the future that she is dedicated to learning and working for the needs of students, and it's likely that party-loyal Blaine Luetkemeyer would place the needs of students second. Baker has shown that she has more than sufficient knowledge of educational issues and has consistently pushed for improvements at MU. She's made an effort to put herself out there and get our opinions, and visited Speaker's Circle to gather student input. She once worked for University Physicians, enhancing both her knowledge and experiences with MU and her expertise with health care.

Luetkemeyer just hasn't shown that he cares enough about student input for us to show our support. He's spent most of his time in other parts of the state, and little on campus. This makes us doubt both his accessibility and the chance he would improve conditions for MU students.

GOVERNOR: Jay Nixon

When it comes to the race for governor, we don't strongly support either candidate. We do feel that Jay Nixon or Kenny Hulshof would be a significant step up from current Gov. Matt Blunt. Blunt hasn't been good for higher education. Vetoing the student curator bill was just the last of a long line of decisions he's made that negatively affect MU students, and we want to elect someone that will reverse that trend.

Hulshof is a more personable, likeable candidate - and is from Columbia, meaning that he has a good grasp on issues facing MU - but we feel Nixon would be able to get more done for MU students while in office. With a change in party administration there might be a better chance of the student curator bill passing through without a veto.

In addition to what he can do for students, Nixon's also always been a very strong proponent of the Sunshine Law and has educated smaller governments on its importance. We feel transparency is a necessity. Plus, it would be nice to have the change of pace of a Democratic governor in a state that has had a lock-step Republican majority in the legislature that passed several disagreeable bills, namely the 2005 Medicaid cuts.

ATTORNEY GENERAL: Michael Gibbons

One thing we like about Gibbons is his idea to upload and store all state documents to the attorney general's Web site for easy access, so citizens won't have to invoke sunshine requests every time they want public information on an important issue. We also like the way he's been very vocal on the issue of rape kits, and says women shouldn't have to pay to use them. It isn't fair for a victim of a crime to incur a financial cost in order for the state to enforce the law. This is important, especially to college women. And we're also big on Gibbons' attitude toward the Shield Law, so he's looking like the

right candidate to support this year. Chris Koster, a former prosecutor, wouldn't necessarily be a bad choice, but Gibbons has already actively pledged support for many important policies we care about.

19TH SENATE: Chuck Graham

There are ups and downs to both Graham and Kurt Schaefer. Schaefer, who would be a fresh face to the scene, is strongly against restricting research, has a deeply invested interest in helping the environment, heavily promotes the Sunshine Law and said he'd work to obtain better funding for MU. But he doesn't support the student curator bill as it passed through the legislature this year, and he hasn't proposed a realistic, effective alternative. Although he's a good candidate, he isn't sufficiently concentrated on student concerns. We do care about the environment and other issues, but advocacy of student issues at the Capitol is our main priority.

Graham is the strongest advocate in the Capitol for students, but could be more effective in areas besides student issues. His most significant achievements last legislation were getting the student curator bill through Senate and filibustering a bill that would sell about $350 million in assets from MOHELA and restricted stem-cell research in capital improvements. He hasn't achieved an overwhelming amount while in office, but it's clear he is dedicated to helping MU students, and we want that voice in the General Assembly. Graham's done a lot more good for students than most other Missouri legislators, and we want to see that continue and grow. Because this session is a make-or-break time for the student curator bill, we want to play it safe, and we know Graham would actively support it.

24TH HOUSE: Chris Kelly

The key factor bumping Kelly above Ed Robb is that Kelly is significantly more in touch with the needs, thoughts and desires of students. This is directly reflected by Robb's dismissive approach to the student curator bill. He believes students are simply too young and inexperienced with large budgets to make sound decisions about our own education. We vehemently disagree. In addition, Robb is vice chairman of the Budget Committee, yet we still haven't received the necessary funding increases we need to continue providing quality education at MU. Robb just hasn't shown he cares. Because Kelly has noticed that something needs to be done, he is willing to come out of retirement to help MU. Kelly supports the student curator bill, is against restrictions on university research and is dedicated to obtaining more funding for MU. Robb says he supports more funding and opposes research restrictions, but hasn't exactly stood up for those issues and been a fighter, which is exactly what we need right now.

25TH HOUSE: Mary Still

What tips us in favor of Still is that she's had experience both at the university and at the Capitol, and we've liked how she's worked in the past. She shows an incredibly keen interest in what students want, as reflected by her constant presence at campus and her attendance at events such as a meeting about MU's master plan. She's pledged to continue that accessibility. With her open and on-our-level attitude, we feel that she really would listen to students, honestly take our opinions into consideration and try to make good things happen for MU. She also said she's in favor of the student curator bill and would sponsor it, so that's a definite plus.

Ryan Asbridge isn't a bad candidate. He's a teacher and places high priority on meeting the needs of Missouri public schools, including MU, and supports academic freedom and green initiatives. There are good things Asbridge could bring to the table. But Still has had a lot of experience, and we feel she could more quickly and effectively pick up where Judy Baker left off.

PROPOSITION A: Vote No

One of our biggest problems with Proposition A is the tagline "The Schools First Initiative." It's very clear that Proposition A isn't about Missouri schools, and that its biggest supporters are not from education. Proposition A, above all, benefits casinos. Although the first item on the ballot, mandating the repeal of loss limits for gamblers and the taxes on the extra cash flow that will result, seems relatively harmless, the second item on the ballot - placing a cap on the number of casinos that can exist in Missouri - is wrong. We can't vote yes to an initiative that supports this. When it comes to education, it's doubtful that Proposition A would significantly increase funding. The proposal requires that legislators don't let the additional funding affect how much they allocate to schools, but there's no way to enforce that. Organizations like the Missouri State Teachers Association haven't endorsed the proposition - another sign that the item's main benefits aren't for education.

We might agree, however, with an initiative that repeals loss limits just because it isn't right for the government to limit what someone wants to do with his or her money - but we cannot agree with a proposal that arbitrarily places a cap on the economic competition within a sector, especially when it comes packaged as a way to help education. 

AMENDMENT 1: Vote No

Amendment 1 is not only condescending and xenophobic, but it's also an unnecessary amendment and could actually prove detrimental in a lot of communities. If a town wants to hold its meetings in another language because that language is the best-known by most of its residents, there's no reason it shouldn't be able to do that. Restricting them to English might mean more difficulty getting things done. And the bill makes Missouri a hostile environment to many people we're trying to attract to the state and to MU. As a university, we consistently try to attract international students and make them want to stay, and Amendment 1 would deter these efforts.