I have finally had enough, and I am writing in regard to the overt political bias exhibited by the editorial board of the Daily. I was initially glad to see the anti-Bush sentiment expressed by the editors. This is a student newspaper, and the idea that the editors — people who write movie reviews and articles on Cuffs — have any credibility when it comes to politics is ridiculous. Therefore, when the Daily came out in support of Al Gore’s candidacy, it seemed to read more like an endorsement of Bush.

Monday’s editorial goes too far. I had no idea there was a statute of limitations on how much time could elapse from when a political candidate committed an offense to when he “learned his lesson.”

So what if it took George W. Bush 10 years after his DUI to stop drinking? Is there any record of him being arrested for this or any related offense again? No. Because he DID learn from his mistake. The implication that Bush could only possibly have “learned his lesson” if he stopped drinking is ludicrous and sounds a bit ultra conservative to me.

The Daily’s continuous attack on Bush is nothing more than negative campaigning, which the editors themselves say they dislike. If the editorial board is going to endorse a candidate, let them do it by pointing out that candidate’s merits, not by engaging in desperate attempts to smear the candidate they dislike.

And if they still feel the need to resort to such irresponsible journalism, perhaps it is because their candidate’s merits are actually quite limited.

Gail Helt

Graduate student

Political science