Ben Albright, in your March 5 guest column, “Actions speak louder than mudslinging,” you tried to make the case that you and Mr. [Mike] Banasiak did not resort to “mudslinging” and that you are running on a platform that lets your actions speak for themselves.

This is a noble idea, indeed, or rather it would’ve been a noble idea had you actually followed through with it. While I was reading your column, it seemed that every other word was what I would consider “mudslinging.” For instance, you referred to your opponents’ “baseless promises” and their “vague undertakings,” and you stated that your platform “is not the usual vague, unfounded ideas and promises about tuition and communication that is the typical attempt to get votes.” If this is not mudslinging, what do you call it?

Mr. Albright, I think you hurt your campaign more than you helped it by trying to place yourself (and your runningmate) on a pedestal, when it is clear that all candidates are on the same plane (as far as “mudslinging” goes).

What is worse, you spent an awful lot of time trying to make a case for why you should be on that pedestal instead of detailing what you’ve actually done that would make us believe that you are not apathetic. Frankly, I would rather elect a candidate who is, perhaps, overconfident in their agenda than one who is satisfied with being impassive.

Jonathan Meier

Senior

Religious Studies