Observer Viewpoint | Wednesday, February 18, 2004
In Tuesday’s issue of the Observer, Michelle McCarthy talked about how immature the student body was in its refusal to elect Charlie Ebersol. She claims that people voted for the Istvan/Bell ticket because they did not like Ebersol as a person and then she declares that this was immature because so few of those who voted truly know Charlie Ebersol.
At the same time, though, she believes she knows exactly why people voted the way they did. The whole argument is hypocritical. In fact, there are many people who voted for Istvan/Bell without taking into consideration that Ebersol drives a Hummer or that they heard he was a jerk from other people.
I admit that I did not necessarily vote for Istvan/Bell when I chose them and was just casting a vote against Ebersol/Leito. However, the reason behind this had nothing to do with the things I heard about his personality or Hummer.
The reason I voted against Ebersol was because as the head of SUB, he showed that he was incapable of leading the school. The day of the primary election, The Observer ran a perfect example of Ebersol’s incompetence on the front page. His plan for the benefit concert at Notre Dame Stadium failed. Lots of readers probably saw this as good publicity for Ebersol’s campaign to show that he wanted the best for the student body. I only saw it as Charlie Ebersol being an ineffective leader.
As a result, I lost total faith in Ebersol as a leader at Notre Dame. On the same day that his platform promised great changes and major progress for the school, I read about his failure at one of his latest endeavors.
Charlie Ebersol had experience, but that was about all he had to offer. Just because someone has had student government experience does not mean that he will be a good student government president. I would much rather give someone else a chance instead of rewarding someone who has already proven his own inability.
Joe LattalFreshmanDillon HallFeb. 17