Actually, a significant minority – a third of the Progressive Alliance – strongly backs Bill and Pat. In addition, it is misleading to criticize Will Pearse for coming into the debates already supporting Bill and Pat, because Rainbow Alliance as a whole supported Bill and Pat from the beginning.

Over and Out,

Julia

Bill Pulte and Pat Dawson clearly outshone Mike McGee and Tommy Smithburg in their answers to questions posed to them. Pat Dawson alone had done more than almost all of the other candidates combined on Progressive Alliance issues, and spoke with clarity and conviction on the questions that were raised.

The same could not have been said for Mike and Tommy. I know for a fact that one of the members of the Progressive Alliance who got to sit in on the debate (the sitting senator from SEED, Julia Brook), is on Mike McGee’s campaign team. First and foremost, this is an obvious conflict of interest. The zealousness with which she tried to tear Bill Pulte and Pat Dawson down during deliberations was disappointing at best, and malicious at worst. It was a shame to see it go that far.

Bill Pulte and Pat Dawson deserved that endorsement. Period.

-almost everyone went into the room with at least a soft preference for either Bill Pulte and Patrick or Mike and Tommy Smithburg.
-there is nothing nefarious about that fact. Both sets of candidates had reached out to most of the members in the room, and most of the people in that room had worked with either Mike or Patrick on various student groups or student-initiated projects at some point during their college careers, and naturally would have developed biases in favor of those candidates based on those interactions
-though they may have been predisposed to backing one candidate or another, all of the people in the room listened attentively and respectfully to each candidate as he described his platform

In the end, the endorsement decision probably came down to a calculated decision for most people at the forum, and not a “hasty and poorly thought-out choice” and Pearse alleges in his letter. While the progressive credentials of Mike and Patrick could not be questioned in good faith, Bill and Tommy have done little-to-nothing to advance the interests of these groups during their three years on campus, or show that they were in solidarity with the groups on the issues they care about. While Bill has done a good job with his frat and with his business, and while Tommy has done a good job with campus transportation issues, ultimately these accomplishments were peripheral to Mike and Pat’s commitment to progressive causes. Mike being at the top of the ticket was likely the deciding factor; a Pat-Bill ticket likely would have been much more competitive for the PA endorsement.

Pearse’s letter is an unfortunate reaction to what was by all accounts a very fair process. I hope that it doesn’t jeopardize the willingness of our groups to work together to raise awareness of the issues that unite us.

It is also interesting that you say Tommy and Mike have no accomplishments to show for their time in ASG when they have many more tangible results than Bill (his sole completed project being ASG ListIt).

This “ill-founded” editorial represents not a minority opinion of the Progressive Alliance but the opinion of a firmly entrenched member of Bill and Pat’s campaign – at least recognize this much and get over it. This is a campaign – you win some you lose some – Neal didn’t whine and I didn’t see editorials complaining about how he didn’t get the Coalition of Colors or Progressive Alliance endorsements last year.

You should be less surprised by the verdict and realize Rainbow Alliance is only one of many groups in the Progressive Alliance. They clearly understand that Mike and Tommy have the most realistic and truthful platform with leaders that have shown in the past year they can accomplish projects from RideShare to Airport Shuttles to an Academic Advising Fair, NUPAL and beyond.