I just got another one of those emails from Senator Steven Gerner imploring me to vote for his suggested candidates, but it looks as if there’s some code warfare going on. I checked this morning to find that StudentLink had added anti-frame JavaScript in order to keep itself in its own dedicated window instead of a right-hand frame.

It looks as if PCYD.us is fighting back, though, as it now has a popup link leading to the voting site, effectively bypassing the frame blocker.

Gerner never responded to my request for comment, and I reckon nothing of consequence came out of the elections commission concerning this. Moreover, it looks as if even more senatorial candidates than before bowed out before the general election, not that they’ve made me care enough to check against the previous list. The most boring, intellectually-absent election in four years at UA rages on.

The primary election results are in, but I’ve come to a different conclusion than I expected, though I suppose I was just being naive. I really do hope things turn around soon for the sake of the student body.

This is one of those issues where liberal and conservative no longer mean anything. The Wildcat coming from a liberal perspective looks just as apathetic. What does that tell you, people?

How to listen:

Play episode | RSS 2.0 Feed (podcasts) | Subscribe with iTunes

I’m looking to take video of the upcoming ASUA debates (Thursday and Monday), but I don’t own a video camera. If you’re willing to help out a blogger, please let me know.

I will be at the election results show tonight at 8pm in the Union Kiva, but what you may not know is that my laptop screen broke early in the semester. I decided on buying an external monitor instead of fixing it, which works for schoolwork but doesn’t work for podcasting large events as I did with the congressional debates last semester. For audio though, there’s always the laptop loans available at the library, of which I’ll probably be taking much advantage in the next week.

(updated)

This post contains sexually explicit descriptions and should not be read by children.

I didn’t get the chance to see Brother Jed Smock in action yesterday, but I did today. Coming out of a class that ended at 12:15 in the Psychology building, I headed west to find him at the Alumni Plaza in his trademark look going through a typical overdramatized routine about how he used to be into “rrrrrrock and roll!”

I observe for about fifteen minutes with some friends. Some campaign staff for presidential candidate Brad Wulff and executive vice presidential candidate Jessica Anderson arrive. I talked to one of them and explained my blog and questionnaire, asking if they could relay to their candidates a request to fill it out. Somewhere in the middle of this, they ask the crowd to vote for Brad Wulff.

I then observed him take out a pair of electrical extension cords and start explaining how homosexuality doesn’t work. The female ends don’t connect together. Neither do the male ones. But connect a male and female and it works, “up and down, up and down.”

Out of the west in the distance comes senatorial candidate Dustin Cox (an acquaintance and classmate of mine in a national security class last semester) campaign, probably unaware of the specific demonstration he was giving. They all start chanting.

We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!
We love Cox…for ASUA Senate!

Even I was laughing here. Smock responded by waving the end of his electrical cord to illustrate a limp penis. As the Cox campaign completed their demonstration, Brother Jed then starting singing his own little song, still illustrating male homosexual activity with the electrical cord.

It’s not okay to be gay…
It’s not okay to be [pause] HO-MO.

I feel like Jed and I are the only people not laughing, and I’m not laughing for a different reason than him. Though I was talking with a friend while this started, it was the last straw. For the first time in my college career despite Brother Jed having visited annually for decades, I verbally confront Brother Jed.

Sir, do you think this glorifies Christ? What is your objective, sir?

Brother Jed continues with his song and explanations ignoring me for a bit. I keep imploring him to speak with me. But once he’s done, I have his attention. My right leg is shaking uncontrollably. I explain that I am a Christian and I don’t think what he’s doing is helping out at all, but is rather engineered to induce mockery. We start debating. He then brings up a new subject and shifts the conversation, talking about how the scientific possibility of being “born gay” is a falsehood.

I haven’t examined this evidence, but what I do know is that we’re born sinful. My inclination to sin does not make sin right; it does not justify my sin. Brother Jed disagrees, noting that Romans 5 says that death is passed on, not sin.

Still yet, we have some common ground. The asking for mockery ends, and suddenly Brother Jed started making sense. The group became quiet. Some left out of boredom. One gave the middle finger, and for a guy like Brother Jed, that’s a small number.

Another man who’s been hanging around the mall for the past two weeks with his dog and his sign notes that Brother Jed spoke to him while he was a student in 1977; that’s what brought him to Christ. After much talking, he asks if I can say Amen to what he had been speaking since our dealing.

I can say Amen to that. Absolutely.

Later on, I explain how I came to Jesus. I also encourage the crowd not to examine Brother Jed, but to examine Christ himself. Is He real? Are the Gospels reliable? Does He want you to come to him? Brother Jed agrees.

Fellow students, it’s not about what we think of this one mall evangelist or anybody for that matter; it’s about the Guy Upstairs.

Despite the mockery of Dustin Cox, and the random imploring of the campaigns of Brad Wulff, Jen Dang, and Michael Slugocki, and the scoffing of yours truly during the past three years, something out of this made sense. Maybe Brother Jed isn’t as bad as we all apparently think. And no matter how the guy really is, something truly good came out of it all. It’s just what I prayed for last night. It’s what so man of us have been praying for during 24/7 Prayer. And God answered. And we’re going to keep praying. And He’s going to keep answering.

As many of you may have noticed already, ASUA presidential candidate Anthony Stuart reports that fifteen people (as of his first reports) have filed complaints against ASUA Senator Steven Gerner for setting up a website containing two frames: one with his candidate endorsement and the other with the official polling website.

Stuart posted a reply through a comment on the previous post as well as mistakenly emailing the entire ASUA listserv when he only wanted to send it to me. After some outcry, I clarified the situation and Stuart subsequently apologized for the mistake. There is a provision of the Elections Code that prohibits campaigning on listservs unless a club which owns a listserv is making an endorsement. Stuart clearly wasn’t intending to campaign on a listserv here; let’s hope the Elections Commission agrees.

In addition to the allegations in the comment and email, Stuart contends that not only is Gerner posting the website after it had been struck down by the Elections Commission, but also that this constitutes an egregious violation of both the Elections Code and his personal integrity. Moreover, the posting of the site endangers the candidates listed to major action from the Elections Commission. I recall that Elections Commissioner David Martinez III did mention during the mandatory candidate meeting following the petition deadline that individual candidates would be held responsible for clubs’ violations of the elections code, e.g. putting more than one candidate’s name on a single flyer. I didn’t talk to Stuart long on the phone (as he has a campaign event tonight), but I think this restriction is what he was talking about. As I’ve mentioned way too many times lately, Gerner is the central figure in the recent “Red” dealings (1 | 2 | 3 | 4) on which only the Growler has been reporting.

Should this particular issue come to the ASUA Supreme Court, it may come to an issue of the definition of “campaign staff” as debated in a case last year. At that time, it was ruled that candidate Rhonda Tubbs could not be punished for a campaign violation that fellow “Orange” ticket candidate Matt Van Horn committed on her behalf. As I understood it, Tubbs could not be disqualified because Van Horn technically wasn’t a member of her campaign staff. (By the way, the violation was for putting “Vote Rhonda Tubbs” on his AOL Instant Messenger profile. This act is no longer a violation under the new elections code.)

It is my belief that the ASUA Supreme Court is quite corrupt, at least after my experience with getting stonewalled either for not being a real journalist or for having criticized their inherent claim to objectivity after Justice Shar Bahrmani wrote a letter to the Wildcat concerning the Cade Bernsen sexual harassment allegations. Bahrmani still sits on the court. That’s right; Rep. Grijalva wasn’t the first guy to ever stonewall me for not being a real journalist in case you were wondering.

Meanwhile, the “Judicial Court” at Texas A&M University recently ruled that their elections rule concerning multiple candidate names was unconstitutional. Should a club make the exact mistake Commissioner Martinez was citing, this could be another constitutional issue for the court to decide.

I’m one to think Steven Gerner is within his constitutional rights regardless of whether Anthony Stuart was correct in calling him a “slimeball” over the phone. Constitutional rights unfortunately do not always entail etiquette, though if I was in his position I would have done what I’m doing now: endorse the candidates and avoid getting them in trouble.

The Elections Commission according to the Elections Code has 24 hours to respond to each of the 15 or more complaints received today. Stuart claims he sent his complaint within one hour of his reading it this morning, so expect something soon. Meanwhile, I’m contacting Gerner for comment and keeping a very watchful eye on everybody.

Coming tomorrow morning is a report concerning the current visit of mall evangelist “Brother” Jed Smock, including my confrontation with him and various candidates mocking him or using his crowd in order to campaign. I’ve actually had a change of heart about the guy, and I’m quite peeved at the candidates who decided to take advantage the way they did. If you haven’t voted yet and you’re considering candidates other than my endorsements, you will want to read this report before casting your ballot.

Full disclosure: I consider Steven a friend and we are registered as friends on Facebook after having taken a class together. I can always pledge to do my best to remain objective in such matters, but disclosure matters as well. Take that as you wish.

I just got this email this morning…

Hey Garrett!

I hope you’re having an amazing day! I know you’re going to get
several emails about this, but today (Feb. 27) and tomorrow (Feb. 28)
are Student Government Elections! There are a bunch of super amazing
candidates running I was hoping you would take a moment to vote for.
It takes less than a minute to vote.

Vote Online Now - http://www.pcyd.us/

President - Tommy Bruce
Executive VP - Michael Slugocki
Admin VP - Jen Dang
Senate
- Mark Copoulos
- Dustin Cox
- Amy C. Drapkin
- Jason Brian Ernst
- Brent Hanson
- Seema Patel
- James Pennington-McQueen

Vote Online Now - http://www.pcyd.us/

These candidates are running on lots of different "tickets", but I
know each and everyone of them will be amazing in office. I’m not
working on any of their campaigns, I just think they would do a great
job and that’s why I’m sharing this with you. While student
government might seem distant, they have over a $1 million budget
offering services like SafeRide and impacting Tuition, Class
Availability, and Textbook Prices. The people in office really can
make a difference! Feel free to forward this email and encourage
others to vote.

Smile if you made it all the way down here! It’s a beautiful day!

Thanks!

Steven Gerner
[email address removed]

Following the link leads to a frameset where the candidate names — hosted on pcyd.us — are on the left with the polling website — hosted on UA servers — on the right.  There is no insinuation that any of the candidates explicitly authorized the webpage.

Nonetheless, you may recall my previous investigation of the "Steven ‘Red’ Gerner" dealings.  All candidates on the "Team Red" ticket are present on the emailed list.  New to "Team Red" since that time is Executive VP candidate Michael Slugocki.

Last year’s elections code to my remembrance prohibited candidates from establishing their own polling stations (which only requires a couple of laptops with wireless Internet access); I don’t see it in this one.  Steven has every right to set this up as should any candidate, but I doubt the elections commission likes the looks of this.

Meanwhile if you are voting, my primary elections endorsements are Alaina Glatting for Admin VP and Ry Ellison for Senate, neither of whom appear in the email.  Vote at this link, not at that other one.

Update/note: This post was written before Ry Ellison’s answers came in, so the statistics and commentary below are a little off. –GPO

Administrative Vice President candidate Alaina Glatting is currently the sole respondent to the ASUA candidate questionnaire. Though I disagree with many of the answers she provided, I am grateful for her willingness to answer the tough questions without shame.

I reckon the low responses is because only six out of 23 candidates are at risk in the primary election, but a 16.7% response rate among those at risk is still very disappointing.  Maintaining this rate requires only three more candidates out of the remaining 23 to respond, which is hardly a way to make an educated voting decision.

Alaina is running against two other candidates in Tuesday and Wednesday’s primary election in which the third-place candidate will be eliminated from the general election ballot.  In the interest of promoting general election candidates who are open about what they believe, the Arizona Growler awards a primary election endorsement to Alaina Glatting for ASUA Administrative Vice President.

Alaina’s responses follow: 

1. Describe your political views (liberal, conservative, etc.) and how they affect your campaign platform.

   Although I do have my own set of views on politics which do make me lean one way or the other in certain situations, I do not feel that these views affect my campaign platform. The University of Arizona is highly diverse and the programs and services focuses on serving the students regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity, and any other beliefs. I would work to help make every student feel comfortable and my political views have no impact on equality.

2. In future elections, what should the monetary limit of campaign spending be (if any)?

   Any qualified person at the U of A should be able to run for a position. If someone chooses not to run, it should not be because of their financial status. There should be a certain limit for every candidate and the current budget I feel is fair. It allows candidates to have enough spending to promote themselves without holding back other candidates who are not as well off.

3. Is the position of ASUA Senator in your view more legislative or administrative? Is this a false dichotomy?

   I believe that the position of ASUA senator is a mixture of the two. A senator should be able to formulate a platform based on the needs of the student body and if elected should succeed on making it a reality. All the while, a senator should be attending the scheduled Senate and other meetings to represent their cause at the administrative level.

4. The Women’s Resource Center recently sent out an email railing against the recent Justice For All exhibit that was out on the mall. Is this appropriate conduct for a part of student government?

   I do feel that a student government organization saying outright that another organizations display is “lie-filled” might not be in their best interest. I also would have to say that the directors who wrote the article together probably decided what they thought was best for their organization. It would be my duty as the Administrative Vice President to work with all of the directors and make sure that everything sent out is respectful of everyone’s views.

5. Regardless of your position on abortion, does the Justice For All exhibit present a need for certain mall events to be curtailed?

   I feel that everyone has the right to believe what they want to believe. I also believe that there should be a certain restriction on what mall events can and cannot be presented. The mall is a very public place and presentations should show both sides of an issue as to not pinpoint that a certain one is correct. I also feel that such a large public display might have been better off somewhere that is not quite as populated so that people have the choice to look at it or not.

6. Should the Women’s Resource Center and the Pride Alliance be relegated to club status in order to facilitate fairness towards all points of view?

   Programs and Services is an area of ASUA that is able to reach out to as many students and possible regardless of their sexual orientation, ethnicity or any other beliefs, as I mentioned in the first question. Pride Alliance does reach out to the LGBTQ community but does not turn away anyone who comes by. The same goes towards the Women’s Resource center. With a growing and diverse university such as this one, relegating these two programs to club status would take away student government representation to a large population of students that utilize both of these wonderful organizations.

7. How transparent is ASUA? Should things such as proposed bills and Senate minutes be required to be posted onto the ASUA website for public review?

   As an organization that is here to represent all of the students on campus, I feel that the students should be able to know what is going on. If posting Senate minutes and proposed bills is in the best interests of the students, than I see no reason why it could not be implemented.

8. In comparison with the old elections code, do you think that the new elections code will result in less mudslinging than in previous elections? Is it strong enough against potential "dirty" campaigners?

   The Elections Commissioner this year has worked very diligently to create a fair, practical and strong elections code. The hard work and dedication that has been put in to create it, has not gone to waste. I do think that if someone wants to be a “dirty” campaigner, they will find a way regardless of how well written any code may be. I have not been able to find anything wrong with the code in its entirety this year and as of now it seems to be working just fine.

9. David Horowitz recently laid heavy criticism upon the University of Arizona, going to far as to criticize individual classes and instructors, leading to heavy debate over issues of academic freedom. Truly, what is the best implementation to facilitate a "free marketplace of ideas"? Are Horowitz’s criticisms fair? Does Horowitz’s "Academic Bill of Rights" fit the bill?

   I believe that everyone has the right to their own opinion. Horowitz spoke up about what he believes in. I personally do believe that the professors should not lead students to believe one side or another of certain controversial issues. I also feel it might have been going a little over the line to specifically pinpoint certain professors and individuals on the subject but the overall idea is a good one, in my opinion.

10. What if anything should university administration and/or ASUA do in the wake of recent offensive speech and activities on and off campus?

    Depending on the subject of any speech and activity on or off campus, if it effects the students at the university, it could be in the best interest of the ASUA to comment. With these comments, ASUA and the administration should both be unbiased and explain the situation to the extent that the students understand and can get more information if they choose to do so. I would hope that it is not a member of the student government or the administration that initiated the offensive activities.

11. Is military aircraft noise presenting a significant barrier to university activities?

    Although I do not feel that it is a significant barrier to university activities, if changing the flight plan is not going to interfere too much with the current instruction and practices of the military base then it would be nice to have it changed. It hasn’t been too many years that the aircrafts have actually been able to fly over the university (due to past events) and I am unaware that anyone has actually researched into it since.

12. Given the regular inability to fulfill campaign promises, explain how those on your platform are feasible.

    When I researched my platforms, I made sure that they are very feasible to accomplish in one academic years time. Cats Ridde has been researched for the past few years and there are many universities around the nation with similar programs. With more research and funding, making Cats Ridde a success is just around the corner. With such a diverse university, representing as many international students as possible is something that needs to happen. The international student association (ISA) has been a program within Programs and Services for many years and just needs to be shown a little more attention. Wildcat World Fair (WWF) has expanded in the past few years, so allowing ISA and WWF to work together will help promote both organizations and international students together. Lastly, every program has the potential to do something amazing and with the proper guidance, every director can improve their programs to make next year one of the most successful in representing students. All of these promises can absolutely be accomplished in one year.

The responses themselves are public domain.  The questions, like all posts, are licensed for public use.

Senatorial candidate Ry Ellison’s answers came in late, so I’m posting them below Alaina’s. Ry also receives an Arizona Growler primary election endorsement.

Full disclosure: Ry and I do not have a longstanding relationship, but we are registered as friends on Facebook.

1. Describe your political views (liberal, conservative, etc.) and how they affect your campaign platform.
2. In future elections, what should the monetary limit of campaign spending be (if any)?
3. Is the position of ASUA Senator in your view more legislative or administrative? Is this a false dichotomy?
4. The Women’s Resource Center recently sent out an email railing against the recent Justice For All exhibit that was out on the mall. Is this appropriate conduct for a part of student government?
5. Regardless of your position on abortion, does the Justice For All exhibit present a need for certain mall events to be curtailed?
6. Should the Women’s Resource Center and the Pride Alliance be relegated to club status in order to facilitate fairness towards all points of view?
7. How transparent is ASUA? Should things such as proposed bills and Senate minutes be required to be posted onto the ASUA website for public review?
8. In comparison with the old elections code, do you think that the new elections code will result in less mudslinging than in previous elections? Is it strong enough against potential "dirty" campaigners?
9. David Horowitz recently laid heavy criticism upon the University of Arizona, going to far as to criticize individual classes and instructors, leading to heavy debate over issues of academic freedom. Truly, what is the best implementation to facilitate a "free marketplace of ideas"? Are Horowitz’s criticisms fair? Does Horowitz’s "Academic Bill of Rights" fit the bill?
10. What if anything should university administration and/or ASUA do in the wake of recent offensive speech and activities on and off campus?
11. Is military aircraft noise presenting a significant barrier to university activities?
12. Given the regular inability to fulfill campaign promises, explain how those on your platform are feasible.

Note:
At Mr. Ellison’s request dated 19 March 2008, I have removed the answers that were previously published on this page.

Garrett P. O’Hara
20 March 2008, 03:20 GMT

All responses to the survey are public domain.

Primary election due date: February 24th
General election due date: March 3rd.

This question list is much less extensive than the one from last year, so I do expect more of a response.

1. Describe your political views (liberal, conservative, etc.) and how they affect your campaign platform.
2. In future elections, what should the monetary limit of campaign spending be (if any)?
3. Is the position of ASUA Senator in your view more legislative or administrative? Is this a false dichotomy?
4. The Women’s Resource Center recently sent out an email railing against the recent Justice For All exhibit that was out on the mall. Is this appropriate conduct for a part of student government?
5. Regardless of your position on abortion, does the Justice For All exhibit present a need for certain mall events to be curtailed?
6. Should the Women’s Resource Center and the Pride Alliance be relegated to club status in order to facilitate fairness towards all points of view?
7. How transparent is ASUA? Should things such as proposed bills and Senate minutes be required to be posted onto the ASUA website for public review?
8. In comparison with the old elections code, do you think that the new elections code will result in less mudslinging than in previous elections? Is it strong enough against potential "dirty" campaigners?
9. David Horowitz recently laid heavy criticism upon the University of Arizona, going to far as to criticize individual classes and instructors, leading to heavy debate over issues of academic freedom. Truly, what is the best implementation to facilitate a "free marketplace of ideas"? Are Horowitz’s criticisms fair? Does Horowitz’s "Academic Bill of Rights" fit the bill?
10. What if anything should university administration and/or ASUA do in the wake of recent offensive speech and activities on and off campus?
11. Is military aircraft noise presenting a significant barrier to university activities?
12. Given the regular inability to fulfill campaign promises, explain how those on your platform are feasible.

I’ll still be accepting questions from the public to ask candidates up until the primary election due date, at which point I may modify the survey.  Late responses may still be posted, but I won’t be announcing the posting prominently.  This rule is in place in order to prevent strategic timing of responses.

The candidate list is out, and it contains a few surprises.

For one, I can count at least five then-potential candidates missing from the rolls — one for President and four for Senate — based upon what I remember from the mandatory candidates’ meeting. For the outsiders, this probably means they didn’t garner enough petition signatures to run. ASUA Senator Steven Gerner, whom I investigated along with the other “RED” candidates earlier (1 | 2 | 3) didn’t actually show up to the candidates’ meeting. (I opted to withhold this information until the official list was out.) The other identified “RED” candidates are both running for Senate and have made the list.

The way the primary election works, two executive candidates for each office and twenty senatorial candidates advance to the general election, meaning that outside of potential disqualification of candidates (which I feel is improbable) only two candidates will be eliminated in the primary election.

As stated earlier, I do have a preliminary list of questions online; expect it to be finalized and “released” within the week.

President Tommy Bruce Anthony Stuart Brad Wulff Executive Vice President Jessica Anderson Michael Slugocki Administrative Vice President Amy Adamcin Jen Dang Alaina Glatting

Senate Lauren Abbott Jaharri Asten Jared Cohen Amanda Collins Mark Copoulos Dustin Cox Joshua Demos Amy C. Drapkin Ry Ellison Jason Brian Ernst Ezekiel Amare Gebrekidane Brent Hanson Seema Patel James Pennington-McQueen Mayra Santiago Abbas Tuli

As most have already heard, astronaut Lisa Nowak has been arrested for kidnapping in what appears to be an odd “love triangle” including two astronauts.

As I watched the Fox News report on the ordeal this morning however, I noticed someone else: Nowak flew aboard STS-121 alongside Mark E. Kelly, who is engaged to District 8 Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. You may remember back in October that Kelly and Giffords were accused in the blogosphere of dating while Kelly was married. That turned out to be a last-minute defamatory cheap-shot at attempting to keep Giffords from getting elected. I’m surprised the blogger who reported that didn’t get sued.

Nowak is likely to receive life imprisonment. Frankly, I’m compelled to pray about the whole situation; this looks to be a huge mess.

Friendly reminder: Please consider voting for yours truly for the 2007 Political Blogging Scholarship.

Update: A preliminary list of questions is now online. I won’t declare it finalized until at least when the candidate list is also finalized.

ASUA had a mandatory candidate meeting tonight. In theory, every single remaining potential candidate was there at least for the beginning. I say potential because the elections commission hasn’t finalized the verification of the candidacy petitions. Some other notable things follow.

First, the complaint process has also changed somewhat, enabling the elections commissioner to assign weight to individual violations. Moreover, it’s equipped only to mandate loss of campaign materials or disqualification to only the most obvious elections code violators. I have my nitpicks, but this is a huge improvement last year. Despite my previous (and harsh) criticism of commissioner David Martinez, I think this will work out well.

Display limitations have been loosened, allowing for bigger signs, posters, etc. Good call here. I don’t like the prior restraint in having to get such displays approved, but it should work out anyhow.

Spending limits are now lowered. Presidential candidates may spend up to $400, Vice-Presidential (both offices) may spend $300, and Senatorial candidates may spend $200. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled to put it simply that “money is speech,” but I do agree with this limitation. This isn’t municipal government, and the constituents for the most part aren’t self sufficient. A free-money system here I fear would only favor candidates with the independently-wealthy parents. Sorry, fellow conservatives. This wouldn’t be fair.

I won’t comment on what the rest of the field looks like until the official candidate list is out (which will be shortly), but it looks much more interesting than in previous years.

Stand by for the questions. Again, if you want to submit some of your own, feel more than welcome to do so; just leave it in the comments and I’ll put it in for consideration.

Steven Gerner, mentioned earlier (1 | 2), has responded after I notified him of the posts. He indicated “strong preference” that I not publish the actual text of the response until after the campaign begins, but rather that I would summarize what he stated. The Growler is honoring Gerner’s request.

Essentially, Gerner claims that “Red” was his nickname before entering college, he is not yet an official candidate (per ASUA regulations concerning petition verification), using the nickname if he becomes a candidate will give “clear benefits,” and that he is not trying to gain an advantage by abusing the power of his current position.

At least for now, there is no way to prove this one way or the other, but the timing of starting to use the nickname is still suspect in my mind. The Growler remains open to comment on this issue from all involved and third parties including other potential candidates.

Update: The “campaign manager” wall post is gone from the Drapkin group.

(Updated)

An anonymous commenter just pointed out something important that I inadvertently left out of the RED light story, namely that Senator Gerner in his official capacity has been using the nickname “RED” for a while now. Two emails sent to all UA students from rtucker at email.arizona.edu [spaces added] regarding a proposed student technology fee contain the moniker. The respective emails were sent Jan 19th and Jan 23rd. Both looked similar, but I’ll post one to refresh memories. [HTML edited for brevity]

You were sent this message in accordance with U of A policy on email.

Dear Student,

Recently the Board of Regents postponed increases the Information
Technology Fee to $100 due to a lack of student voice in the fee
increase. As a result, students, staff and faculty have worked together
to create a survey designed to identify student information and
technology priorities. Participants in the survey will be entered into a
drawing FOR ONE OF FIVE $50 AWARDS.

http://www.arizona.edu/survey/123.htm

This survey is a result of university and state leaders taking an
interest in student priorities and your participation could directly
affect the outcome of this fee. Please take a few moments to complete
the survey before Jan. 26 by clicking this link:

http://www.arizona.edu/survey/123.htm

This survey should take approximately 10 minutes to complete. All
respondents will be entered in a drawing to win one of five $50 awards.
Thank you for your participation! Please refer any questions, comments,
or concerns to Steven Gerner. The state is listening! This is our chance
to be heard!

Thanks,
Steven “Red” Gerner
Student Body Senator
[phone number]
sgerner @ u.arizona.edu

An earlier post also mentions Gerner’s efforts concerning the student technology fee, but looking back, I see no mention of the “Red” moniker.

Addition of commentary (7:45 a.m.): Indeed, this looks to cross an ethical line. It’s clear that “Red” is not a longstanding nickname, or we would have seen it during Gerner’s senatorial campaign last year.

Full disclosure: Steven Gerner and I are former classmates from a political theory class and are registered as friends on Facebook.

Note: The email address rtucker @ email.arizona.edu is that of Raquel Tucker who according to the Daily Wildcat is an applications systems analyst in the Registrar’s Office. Emails from the address are a regular occurrence, announcing things such as student health insurance, registration deadlines, and tax information. For the most part, all of the emails concern official university business, so despite the appearance, the emails are not spam.

(Updated)

Much like last year, the current ASUA campaign strategy looks to involve packing people into large Facebook groups named for potential candidates, and then putting things up declaring a "campaign" immediately when the campaign begins.  This year’s campaign begins on February 12th according to the elections website, but I’ve been noticing some activity.

Remember Team Yellow?  A similar strategy looks to be back in the works, as three recent Facebook groups have declared an apparent alliance of "RED."  These include:

• RED - It’s more than a color
• The Awesomeness of Steven ‘RED’ Gerner
• I love James "RED" Pennington-McQueen
• Amy C. Drapkin is RED Hot!!!

I’m not assuming anything malevolent here, but what we’re definitely looking at here is an inevitability of a system where "official campaigning" is only allowed to take place within a specified amount of time.  Regardless of what the elections commissioner might think about this, it’s only fair that everybody finds out and is allowed to follow suit.

If anything makes this "RED" team a painfully obvious preliminary campaign, you might try reading one of the group’s walls…

Moreover, I was hoping that these elections would rise above petty slogans and monikers, but there was also no reason to think they actually would. 

Full disclosure: Steven Gerner and I are former classmates from a political theory class and are registered as friends on Facebook.