Georgetown College Dems Blog

So... is s/he a Democrat, Republican (or just hedging hir bets)?

2008-02-02T17:07:00.000-05:00

So I've just discovered Fundrace 2008 -- want to have some fun? Plug in some addresses, names, zip codes, or employers and see which candidates people are contributing to.

Georgetown employees, it seems, have donated $3300 to Democrats but absolutely nothing to Republicans. People identifying as "students" across the country have given nearly $2,400,000 to Democrats and less than half that to Republicans. (Oh, higher education, the realm of liberalism...)

Yes, slightly voyeuristic, but hey, it's public knowledge.

So who is getting money from the celebrities you're interested in?

The 12 Days of Christmas- Election 2008 Version

2007-12-12T19:19:00.000-05:00

On one of my (many, frequent, and inadvisable) study breaks (eep!), I found this video. It's too irresistible to keep to myself. Enjoy!

"On the twelfth day of Christmas, the liberals gave to me:

Twelve senators failing

11% Approval

Ten Paychecks burning

Nineteen thousand freezing

No more secret ballots

700 billion in new spending

Six troop funding cuts

Hillary's Woodstock museum!

Four bucks a gallon

Al Franken ranting

Two liberal Udalls

And a tax hike for every family!

"If you thought our singing was bad... just wait until the Democrats get their hands on your paycheck next year" ~Paid for by the Republican National Senatorial Committee. (I'm sure their viewers will be glad this is what they're spending their money on)

It's Still the Economy, Stupid

2007-12-09T00:09:00.000-05:00

“It’s the economy, stupid.”

This simple phrase was the touchstone of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign against H.W., who was trying to change the subject. The Clinton Administration presided over a period of booming economic growth, and that—more than his social or foreign policy records—is what he is remembered for.

When it comes down to social values, Democrats aren’t winning anyone over. But a healthy economy is one thing everyone can agree on—and it’s a battle that has been largely overshadowed in the early part of the millennium.

The treasury department announced a voluntary plan among lenders to help alleviate the pain of the sub-prime mortgage crisis by encouraging lenders to not increase interest rates on certain sub-prime loans. The idea is to stabilize the real estate economy to prevent economic growth from being undermined—and in the process, help out a few people who would otherwise lose their homes.

So before the Democrats leap feet-first into judgment, they should remember Clinton’s famous words. The subprime lending proposal should be evaluated strictly in terms of the health of the economy for everybody—and not just the advantage of a very small sectors such as the real estate and lending markets.

Democrats and Republicans alike don't place the economy at the forefront of their campaigns. But if partisan politicians aren't concerning themselves with the issue, the everyday American certainly is. When it comes to winning elections, the promise of a strong economy is an enticing one. The Democrats ought to use this opportunity to refocus attention where it has been severely lacking: the economy, stupid.

Mike Huckabee (brought to you by God)

2007-12-06T21:53:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee on his campaign's recent surge:

I know, right?

Paul Waldman at TAPPED: "Isn't that a tad presumptuous? Or is Huckabee just saying that God is giving him a temporary bump in the polls, only to send his campaign crashing down later, in order to demonstrate to His earthly subjects the danger of hubris and the importance of early fundraising?"

MotherJones says he Huckabee clarified saying he only meant that when people pray things happen-- not that God wants him to be President. That sounds better but why isn't God listening to all the people praying for Fred Thompson? Since presumably a number of Republican candidates have people praying for them and only one can be nominated God has to be listening to some people's prayers and ignoring others. Now I'm sure He must like candidates with theology degrees; but if Huckabee thinks his supporters have the ear of God and the supporters of other candidates don't, he should just say so. All of this sounds so silly but we've seen what messianic thinking can do:

And while we're at it: why does God hate amputees?

Imagine...

2007-12-05T15:06:00.000-05:00

I just discovered this YouTube video, and it really got to me. I found it incredibly touching and thought provoking, and so I decided to share it with all of you. Watch and enjoy, or more to the point, watch and be enraged, saddened, moved, or inspired to action...

(Special thanks to Or Skolnik for finding the video!)

"Bush's opinion on Iran hasn't changed, and that's why 65% of America thinks he's an idiot."

2007-12-04T20:33:00.000-05:00

According to a recent National Intelligence Estimate, Iran halted its nuclear weapons program in 2003—but George Bush isn’t buying it. During today’s press conference with CSPAN, Bush struggled through a convoluted statement regarding Iran. Blanketed within defensive mumbles and rhetoric was the profound concern that “they could restart it.”

The NIE was called for by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who was reacting to the “scary noises” being made about a possible military strike in Iran. Many hoped the report would hush the Administration’s vague suggestions of the strike, which Bush had refused to rule out in October, after Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned the possibility. Bush took the case a step further when he claimed that preventing Iran’s weapons program was essential to “avoiding World War III.”

C-SPAN press seemed skeptical of Bush’s aggressive attitude towards Iran. Many of the questions posed drew parallels to the phantom WMDs in Iraq, and at one point a reporter asked the President, “Are you concerned that the United States is losing credibility in the world and now may be seen as the boy who cried wolf?”

Granted, the report warned that Iran could enrich enough Uranium to build a nuclear weapon by 2010. But with a weapons program that has been dormant for four years, does Iran constitute a threat to world peace? Bush still thinks so. The President’s reaction to the NIE echoes a growing concern that the lame-duck President will launch a strike against Iraq before January 2009, leaving the next President with an even bigger mess to clean up.

Iran’s aggression is doubtlessly uncomfortable, and perhaps Bush is right in remaining vigilant and keeping the issue on the table. But the possibility of another strike is even less appealing, current facts considered. I think Wonkette says it best with their headline:

“Bush’s opinion on Iran hasn’t changed, and that’s why 65% of America thinks he’s an idiot.”

Why Heart Huckabee

2007-12-03T02:21:00.000-05:00

Mike Huckabee is now the front-runner for the Republican nomination in Iowa. If that’s surprising to you, it shouldn’t be—though his numbers in the polls were slow to pick up momentum, there’s something about Mike that might appeal to Republican voters more than Romney’s polished charisma, Giuliani’s middle-of-the-road electability, or McCain’s resume. Huckabee has genuine, down-to-earth personality and an earnestness that just might play to his advantage in less than a month, when Iowa takes the first step towards choosing our presidential nominees.

Huckabee is now leading in Iowa polls by an even greater margin than Obama, supported by 29% of likely caucus-goers. His campaign has been slowly building him up to be a candidate with an almost universal appeal: an ordained Baptist minister, Mike plays bass in a band and is now running campaign ads that boast of Chuck Norris’ support. With his staunch Christian values and his socially conservative bent, Huckabee caters easily to values voters. But this isn’t the be all and end all of his campaign, as he is also an advocate for issues such as health care, federal arts funding, and climate change. With his wide range of issues and his pop-culture endorsements, he is reaching for the support of all conservatives.

And he just might be getting it. With the Iowa caucus just a month away, conservative voters are thinking hard about candidate electability. Only time will tell, but Mike Huckabee might pass the test. Due to the relative lack of attention given to his campaign in the early months of election coverage, he has come out with an untarnished reputation. What’s more, he has a sense of humor that might appeal to younger conservative voters.

Says Huckabee, “I certainly think social issues matter, because they go to the core of our convictions and principles. But I don’t think that’s all there is…People look at a history of effective government. People want somebody who actually has a record of being able to accomplish something — not just talk about it, but do it.”

As of now, It’s hard to tell whether voters are really taking Huckabee seriously. Still, though the cards have yet to be drawn, Democrats might be faced with an unexpected opponent next fall. The question is, how far will Huckabee’s charm take him in wooing the nation’s undecided voters?

World AIDS Day

2007-12-01T23:44:00.000-05:00

As I woke up today, fresh off of completing a nearly 20 page paper and gearing myself up for working on another lengthy assignment, my mind was directly fixed upon the upcoming horrors of Finals period. With exams barely a week away and assignments piling up, Georgetown students focus tends to be situated directly on their own upcoming problems. During this time we begin to lose sight of what may be going on in the world outside of the Hilltop, and proper perspective is often the first thing to go. That is why as I glanced over the news today while on CNN.com I barely registered the words in front of me. They were part of something outside of myself, something which, for the moment, I could not concern myself with. However, as my eyes meandered over the computer screen, one story stuck out at me, and, at least for the moment, has partially snapped me out of my zombie-like condition. Perhaps it is because I am woefully ignorant (a very real possibility), but this story informed me of something of which I had no idea perviously. And, more imortantly, it has made me step back and think for at least a moment. You see, up until a few minutes ago, I had no idea that today was World AIDS Day.

Now, as I said, perhaps most people are aware of this. Maybe I am simply completely uninformed and ignorant. However, if I am not, if others like me exist, than we all need to take a step back and examine our lives and values. HIV and AIDS has taken 2.1 million lives in 2007, and the numbers appear to be on the rise. Currently, around 33.2 million people have HIV or AIDS. This epidemic is devastating many areas of the world, such as Sub-Saharan Africa and Indonesia. Moreover, AIDS is becoming a growing threat in still more countries, such as Ukraine and China, with China alone at risk of having over 50 million people infected. This cannot stand. We must do more, and we must act now.

The first thing to be done, is to open up our wallets today and donate money to the cause. In America, Ron Paul, certifiably insane presidential candidate who would be perfectly content to allow Chuck Norris and Ric Flair to be our country's lone source of national defense (if they were not already supporting his only-slightly less frightening oppponent Mike Huckabee), is able to raise, in a single day, 4.2 million dollars. Undoubtedly, this sort of money would be put to much better use if it was donated to help slow the spread of AIDS. However, we cannot make a change through money alone. We must also strive to spread the word about AIDS and AIDS prevention, by encouraging testing and increasing awareness.

As I began this post, I was going to do something I seldom, if ever do. I was going to praise George W. Bush, for repeating his call on U.S. lawmakers to double support for AIDS programs to 30 billion over five years. However, after considration, I find myself in the much more comfortable and familiar position of criticizing our great Decider. It is all well and good to make such a statement once a year, on World AIDS Day, however, as president Bush can and must do more. This is an issue, which Bush, and all politicians, must place at the forefront of their agendas, and something which the entire American public must be totally aware of. Surely, if we can commit thousands of troops to Iraq in order to 'liberate the Iraqi people,' then we can make it a priority to do more in the fight against AIDS in order to save millions of lives.

And, if the government does not step up to the plate, and continues to make half-hearted calls for change, we still can do this ourselves. We can raise money, increase awareness, encourage testing, and try to make a difference. And, hopefully by next year more people will know that December 1 is World AIDS Day. I can tell you that at least one more person will.

Integrity, Where Art Thou?

2007-11-30T23:43:00.000-05:00

It is no secret that Rudy Giuliani is relying heavily on his record as the former mayor of the United States's largest city on the campaign trail: he has cut crime, cut spending, cut red tape, increased economic growth through the magic of supply-side economics, etc. What is shameful is that many of the numbers he has been touting are greatly exaggerated.

Giuliani, for instance, is fond of taking credit for the decrease in crime in New York City under his administration, but statistics from the U.S. Department of Justice indicate that the violent crime rate peaked in 1990 -- and Giuliani was not sworn into office until four years later. In a recent radio ad attempting to prove that the American health care system is superior to government-run "socialized medicine," he compares U.S. and British prostate cancer survival rates (82 and 44 percent, respectively). The source of the data used to create this statistic, however, says that the numbers were misused: the actual five-year survival rate in Britain is much higher (74 percent). Giuliani's claim to have generated a multibillion-dollar surplus by the end of his mayoral career is also false. In the final fiscal year of his administration, government expenditures exceeded revenues, and the surplus was almost entirely used up in balancing the budget.

I suppose, then, that if your accomplishments aren't good enough, you can always make them up.

Republican YouTube Debate Recap

2007-11-29T23:41:00.000-05:00

I just caught up on my wingnut television for the week. I found it entertaining enough. If you thought the Democrats were getting tough on each other check out this exchange:

While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Giuliani's tactic is interesting. Basically he's denying that New York was a sanctuary city and then justifies the City's "three exceptions". But his three exceptions are basically the components of what define a sanctuary city. I suppose that means the Giuliani camp thinks Republican voters oppose things called "sanctuary cities" but don't really know what the term means. And hey, he might be right. I'm sort of confused about the framing, though. My sense is that the term 'sanctuary' was first used by cities and immigrant rights activists. And it seems like it should be a positive frame. Sanctuaries generally connote nice, happy, places right? Like this:

But nearly every use of the term I've seen has been from conservatives. Are we gaming them or is there a better frame? I sort of like "solidarity cities".

While I sort of enjoy watching the Republicans alienate one of the fastest growing demographics in the country its also appalling that Republicans are bragging about not giving children money for tuition. Which brings me to Huckabee who *gasp* supports letting the children of immigrants have the same chance at winning a merit based scholarship as their peers.

If this had been a general election debate I could say Huckabee just school Romney here. They guy is going to win Iowa and that will probably be how Romney falls apart. I'm ambivalent about whether a Huckabee nomination would be a good thing. On the one hand, Huckabee is definitely the best Republican on domestic spending issues. The guy raised taxes so he could increase state spending by 65%- on things like health care, education and roads. The Club for Growth hates him. I mean really really hates him. Which makes me want to love him.

Unfortunately he also likes to tell women what they can do what they're bodies, tell gay people they can't get married, tell straight people they can't get unmarried, and doesn't believe in evolution. But the real reason I'm worried about a Huckabee nomination is that I think he could win. Truly, he has more political talent than any other Republican running for President. He's like Bush in 2000 except he's articulate and a real southerner. Here's more. Try to get past Tancredo's overwhelming awkwardness at the end:

Really though Mike, choosing the death penalty wasn't the only irrevocable decision you made.

Bleeding Red, White, and [Hoya] Blue

2007-11-27T23:39:00.000-05:00

It’s basketball season, which means that our campus is once again bleeding Hoya blue. Excitement ran high after we crushed Michigan 74-52 at our last home game. But while everyone else was screaming the fight song, a friend of mine was having a nationality crisis.

She is the quintessential international Hoya—half French, half Filipino, she was born in Venezuela and raised in Singapore. (And yes, she’s in the SFS). Which explains why she might not know all of the words to our national anthem. And sure, she wasn’t wild about placing her hand over her heart and staring at the American flag, waving high above our heads in the stadium rafters. What America had to do with basketball, she wasn’t sure, though she was willing to play along. But the climax of the anthem inspired in her a profound sense of isolation, as she stood surrounded by her apparently reverent American peers. It prompted a question I stumbled over, whose answer seemed at once obvious and uncomfortable. She asked me why Americans cheer at the words “the land of the free.”

It’s true—every time I’ve heard the Star Spangled Banner, the applause is loudest at our anthem’s natural climax, the word “free” striking the song’s highest note. Nowadays, the anthem is linked to the stadium crowd, to hot-dog-and-popcorn-toting fans clutching extra-large slurpees to their chests as they murmur along with the celebrity vocalist du jour. “The land of the free” is a phrase both sets of fans in the stadium can agree on; it may be the only time during the game that the two sides are cheering for the same reason. Watching my bewildered friend describe our reaction as the “American swagger,” I couldn’t help but think of the political visions for America in 2008. For me, it begs the question, which side of the political spectrum is really fighting for the land of the free?

Americans are divided on more issues than Congress can legislate in a decade. So, too, are they divided on what freedom means for America. Democrats and Republicans alike cheer along with the stadium fans when talking about America as a free nation. But the Land of the Free is a big claim to make—and a liberal opinion of our country is not without its share of censure. Truthfully, many aspects of America are not all that free. Antiquated laws prevent certain marriages on no justifiable basis, and many poor children still receive little or no medical care. And while conservatives are all vying for the best way to defend our country from an elusive enemy, a Democratic administration will be faced with the weighty task of correcting the fractured image of America abroad. A Republican administration, on the other hand, seems to envision freedom from taxes, gun control, and atheists. Many of the issues dividing the parties boil down to various “freedoms from” and “freedoms to”—gay marriage, border control, abortion, the War on Terror, tax reform, the 2nd amendment, and civil rights, to name a few. Though the Republicans are heralded as the patriot’s party, conservative campaign slogans such as Tancredo’s “It’s your culture: fight for it!” seem to fly in the face of any logical understanding of freedom.

As a liberal, I do my fair share of critiquing the current government. But I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to stand with my hand over my heart and sing our national anthem. Yet I am not fully confident when our collective voices reach that highest note. The land of the free is a vision for the future, it is about hope and about progress. A successful Democratic administration must not compromise our freedoms for power’s sake. But just like that old joke, maybe that’s why Francis Scott Key put “freedom” such a high note—because it’s so hard to reach.

Thank God the GOP is Too Stupid to Nominate John McCain

2007-11-26T23:37:00.000-05:00

As I’ve obsessively watched the race for the GOP nomination, I have noticed that despite its vicissitudes and seeming volatility, one thing has remained constant: Republican voters have consistently underestimated their best (perhaps only) chance of retaining the White House in 2008.

John McCain is not someone I like, but he’s someone I can respect. It’s not just that he’s a bona fide war hero. It’s not just that he has more governing experience than Romney, Giuliani, and Thompson combined. He’s the only Republican in the race with any semblance of integrity.

McCain didn’t just come out of nowhere or invent an identity to run for president. Look at the rest of the Republican field. Fred Thompson was undistinguished as a US Senator, and seems to have been largely drafted into the race by deceptively optimistic poll numbers; a wealthy lobbyist and Washington insider, he’s now being marketed as the simple man’s pickup-truck-and-gun-show candidate. Giuliani and Romney have been tripping over themselves downplaying and apologizing for their past liberal positions. Despite the extensive repackaging they’ve gone through, the only reason they’re still contenders is because they’ve had the good fortune of being mayor on 9/11 and rich, respectively. Ron Paul is still a joke; and –though he’s run a fine campaign—who the hell is Mike Huckabee?

In the parlance of our times, McCain is legit. Unlike the rest of the field, he’s running as himself, not McCain 2.0 (New and Improved), McCain* (A True Conservative - Since April 2002), or John! (Now With Personality). He may be a warmonger and an idiot, but at least you know his belligerence and stupidity are genuine and not the highly-polished product of a skilled marketing campaign to appeal to the jingoistic and dim-witted Republican electorate.

I’ve heard Republicans say that the very fact that liberals like me can respect John McCain suggests that he is too much of a moderate to be nominated by the modern GOP. But if you look at his opponents, Giuliani is clearly the most socially liberal and Huckabee is much farther to the left on economic issues, while Ron Paul takes that honor in the realm of foreign policy.

Like Barack Obama, McCain has centrist appeal without actually being a centrist on policy. Despite his reputation as a ‘maverick’, for the most part McCain’s independent image is greatly exaggerated. He has taken a lot of very public, seemingly audacious stances, breaking GOP taboos by shunning the religious right, supporting campaign finance reform, opposing Bush on torture, and taking a moderate stance on illegal immigration. Although he ultimately caved to the right on all of these issues except campaign finance, he still gets a lot of the credit for it and to this day is mistakenly referred to as independent by the media.

Republican primary voters have rarely, if ever, had the opportunity to nominate somewhat as conservative as McCain who is simultaneously adored by the media and popular among independent voters.

Thank God they’re too stupid to realize it.

Stump the Republicans

2007-11-23T23:36:00.000-05:00

So you’re probably a relatively normal person, and as a result not nearly as excited as I am about the Republican CNN-YouTube debate on November 28th. But if you didn’t watch the Democratic counterpart in July, they actually asked some fairly original and even challenging questions that you’d never hear come out of Wolf Blitzer’s mouth.

That’s why I strongly encourage everyone with a video camera to submit your own questions for the Republican candidates by the November 25 deadline. This is your chance to call out Romney, bewilder Mike Huckabee, embarrass Rudy Giuliani, make Anderson Cooper blush, or simply make life awkward for everyone involved. Just imagine the possibilities. Are you imagining? Ok, fine, I’ll imagine for you:

This is for all the candidates who oppose embryonic stem cell research:

Imagine that a building is on fire- In one room is a dish containing three human embryos; in the other, a newborn baby. You only have time to save one. Which would you choose?

The genius of this question (which I sadly cannot claim credit for) is that for pro-life Republicans, there truly is no right answer. Since they purport that each embryo is a human life, the logical conclusion would be to save the embryos rather than the baby. But any politician who says they would save a Petri dish over a baby would come off as inhuman and unfeeling. On the other hand, if they say they would save the newborn they are essentially conceding that embryos aren’t the same value as human life, and by extension, the sort of ‘life’ that exists at conception is not equal to that of a living, breathing human. That’s why I love this question and suggest you use it to put Republicans on the spot whenever possible.

For Ron Paul:

On your website you warn Americans of a plan to build a NAFTA superhighway from Mexico to Canada, as part of a larger plot by powerful special interest groups to unite The United States, Mexico, and Canada into one nation by the North American Union. Why haven’t we heard more about this grave threat to US sovereignty in the main stream media?

This is actually the least condescending version of this question I could come up with. It also works in regards to the 17th Amendment, the gold standard, the United Nations- or any other radical position that he generally avoids talking about. Essentially, I would love to make the coalition of pseudo-anarchists, misguided stoners, and naïve college students aware that their man is a legitimate nut job.

For Mitt Romney:

In 1994, you claimed that you would be a better advocate for gay rights than Ted Kennedy. Now? Not so much. What has changed since ’94 to account for this shift: your principles, your target audience, or the gays?

You get the idea.

Sadly, I am stranded in the barrens of Western New York without a video camera; but for all of you with the technological means, this is your chance to give your favorite Republican candidate a proverbial bitch slap --phrased in the form of a question, of course. Good luck!

http://www.youtube.com/contest/RepublicanDebate

Let's give thanks for parliamentary procedure

2007-11-23T18:48:00.000-05:00

In a strategic move that would make Josh Lyman proud, Senate Democrats are working every third day this week in order to prevent President Bush from making controversial recess appointments. According to congressional and Constitutional rules, the Senate needs to meet on the day following three consecutive days off to remain "in session". And by keeping the Senate in session (and out of recess), Senate Dems can keep Bush from making any recess appointments.

If anyone is worried about this strategy keeping Democratic Senators away from home on this holiday weekend, you should be reassured by what these pro forma sessions actually entail. In each case, a Senator (Jim Webb D-VA, Byron Dorgan D-ND, and Jack Reed D-RI have volunteered to participate) opens a session and then closes it again. In all, the process takes less than half a minute.

And with that little effort, the Senate has been able to prevent a series of controversial under-the-radar appointments. The leadership was most concerned about Bush's nominee for Surgeon General, James Holsinger Jr., who has a record of being prejudiced towards the LGBT community. What does Bush think qualifies Holsinger to be America's doctor? Well, I'm not sure, but it might have something to do with Hope Springs Community Church. Holsinger was an original founder of the Church that "ministers to people who no longer wish to be gay or lesbian." Holsinger believes that homosexuality is "an issue not of orientation but of lifestyle." I'm happy that the man who might be our next Surgeon General has such a firm grasp on these issues...

So in light of the nightmare situation that has been avoided, on this Thanksgiving I'm giving thanks for the quick-thinking Senate Dems leadership...

$1.3 Trillion vs. $100 Million: Which Was the Better Investment?

2007-11-18T23:34:00.000-05:00

You know we live in a strange world when we have spent $1.3 trillion on a misguided adventure that has made us significantly less secure, and yet we have been able to significantly improve our national security with a different effort that required only $100 million (1/13,000 of the cost). But such are the life and times of the Bush administration.

The two events I am referring to are the war in Iraq and an effort to finance the security of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons.

A new report released by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee places the total cost of the war in Iraq at $1.3 trillion (so far). To put that in perspective, that would cost $16,500 for the average family of four. And what has the war in Iraq accomplished? It has tarnished America’s image around the world, decreasing our ability to work with foreign governments to fight terrorism and increasing anti-Americanism that directly leads to terrorism. At the same time, it has destabilized the Middle East, threatening American political and economic interests in the region.

On the other hand, since 2001, the Bush administration has commendably provided $100 million to help Pakistan secure its nuclear weapons. As Joe Biden likes to assert, the real concern about nuclear proliferation in the Islamic world is not Iran (who is years away from developing a nuclear weapon), but instead Pakistan. Many of Pakistan’s nuclear facilities are not adequately secure, and Pakistani nuclear scientist A.Q. Khan was found to have sold nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea, and Libya. Due to this lack of nuclear security, there is a real risk that Islamic fundamentalists could obtain a nuclear weapon, which could then be used against the United States. In addition, Musharraf’s government is not at all stable, as he has faced three assassination attempts since 2003. If his regime were to collapse, Islamic fundamentalists could take control of the country’s nuclear arsenal. While there have been problems regarding the implementation of the nuclear security program, it is exactly the kind of effort that makes our nation more secure in a 21st-century world.

Instead of spending $1.3 trillion on a war that has made our nation less safe, we should have put the focus on financing these more mundane initiatives, such as the effort to secure Pakistan’s nuclear weapons, that actually make America safer and do it at a fraction of the cost. Unfortunately, the Bush administration’s approach with regard to Iraq was “shoot first, ask questions later."

Global Warming

2007-11-17T23:33:00.000-05:00

Yesterday, a United Nations scientific panel announced that global warming is "severe and so sweeping that only urgent, global action" can prevent it and its repercussions. The war over global warming has been raging for many years; in fact, I feel like it has been for my entire life. Yet, leading Republican officials and presidential candidates, like the illustrious Fred Thompson, continue to deny the existence of global warming and claim that liberals and progressives are overstating the dangers and the facts. Whether Friday’s U.N. report will help to convince some of the doubters remains to be seen, but it is another event which underscores the importance of global warming for not only American politics and American society, but the entire planet.

My question, then, is why aren’t we talking about this more? Why is this not a crucial aspect of the presidential race, and a crucial talking point in society? Why doesn’t everybody know the candidates’ views? Why are we allowing this, even after Al Gore’s Nobel Peace Prize, to be a secondary issue? I cannot answer these questions definitively. It may be that we are afraid to admit that the lifestyle we enjoy so much could be destroying our planet. Maybe admitting that our past and our present need to be drastically critiqued, and our behavior needs to be changed harms a view of American superiority. Perhaps people, like Mr. Thompson, really are this stupid. All I know is that I don’t know. However, regardless of our ignorance and avoidance, this reality is inexcusable.

Politicians often say that they are working to build a better, safer, stronger, more prosperous America for today. But surely, we must admit that working to ensure America’s survival, to ensure that our children, grandchildren, and everyone else down the line can attain these things is also an important goal. Thus, we cannot allow for more evidence to come in until we take action. We must start right now, right away, and work to ensure the preservation of our planet. I am, by no means, a crazed environmentalist. But even I can realize that the time has come, the writing is on the wall, and we need to do something about this. We need to make this an issue that America cares about first. And only then will the politicians truly begin to take notice.

Meanwhile, On Capitol Hill...

2007-11-16T23:30:00.000-05:00

It is an old story, the 2006 midterm elections. Buoyed by voters' opposition to the Republican status quo, the Democrats found themselves with majorities in both houses of Congress. For liberals across the country, it was like an early Christmas present: after having spent the past six years being trodden upon by uncaring, corrupt, and incompetent Republicans, the forces of progressive goodness could at last claim the powers of the legislature as their own. Though voters had much to frown at, the issue that topped them all was the War in Iraq and the management thereof. While a significant majority of the electorate disapproved of the war's handling or expressed support for some form of troop withdrawal, the position of the Left in the Democratic Party can be summarized easily: bring the troops home now.

It is with these demands that the 110th Congress have been grappling, but all attempts to end the War in Iraq or to minimize American involvement in any significant way have been met with a clear resistance from Congressional Republicans and the White House. Most recently, a Democratically sponsored $50 billion funding bill for the war, the money conditional on redeploying the troops to specific missions and completing the process by mid-December next year, failed to get the 60 votes needed in the Senate. Even if the bill had passed, President Bush would have vetoed it, just as he vetoed a spending bill in May that also had troop withdrawal conditions. The Democrats in Congress are repeatedly running into the same brick wall with the same results: nothing is getting done.

Democratic leaders, I would think, recognize that, regardless of how greatly the public might disapprove of the war, nothing will get done. President Bush has staked his political legacy on the war, and he isn't about to admit that it failed. Why, then, does the Democratic Congress continue to play this game? Naturally, it is impossible to read the minds of Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, but here's a guess: Hillary Clinton & Co. are not the only ones looking for success in the upcoming 2008 elections. The entire House of Representatives, in addition to a third of the Senate, are also up for re-election, and they have to look after their own interests. Casting a vote in favor of in some way limiting the extent of the War in Iraq makes for a catchy soundbite and looks good to constituents at home, even if that vote had no actual policy impact. In a broader context, Congress as a whole could use a bit of a boost. A recent NBC/Wall Street Journal poll put Congress's approval rating at 19 percent (for purposes of comparison, the same poll put Bush's approval rating at 31 percent -- yes, Virginia, there is an institution more unpopular than our current head of state). Imagine how much lower it would be if Congress didn't even bother to try fulfilling its mandate.

Assuming, of course, that it is possible for that number to get any smaller.

Pro-Choice in 2008?

2007-11-15T23:28:00.000-05:00

The pro-life / pro-choice debate has long been a point of contention within American partisan politics. Simply put, democrats are pro-choice, republicans are pro-life, and the public votes along these lines. But this oversimplification is being tested now that a pro-choice Republican is running for president—and now stands as the Republican frontrunner.

Since the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, only two U.S. presidents have been Democrats, and nearly all of the Republican presidents have been pro-life. Furthermore, Republican administrations are responsible for 12 of the past 14 Supreme Court nominations. The issue was tested again in 1992 regarding the Casey v. Planned Parenthood decision, which overruled five provisions for abortions in the state of Pennsylvania. Abortion remains legal, despite the supremacy of pro-life administrations. But the debate persists as a key component of any candidate’s platform.

On Wednesday, Fred Thompson was officially endorsed for president by the National Right to Life Committee, the nation’s largest anti-abortion organization. He was touted as “the best candidate to beat Giuliani.” But does this matter? The coming election might test just how powerful a constituency the religious right is. The question remains, does the religious right have enough power to swing the entire primary in a more conservative direction?

A Giuliani nomination—horrifying as that may be—will stand out as a landmark for the Republican Party. Whether the religious right will endorse a third party candidate and (foolishly) split the Republican vote (handing victory to the Democrats) remains to be seen. But should they follow the Republican Party in supporting Giuliani, this might be an indicator that the religious reigns on American conservatives are loosening- or, if nothing else, that the pro-life debate is losing its sway.

A Liberal By Any Other Name

2007-11-13T23:27:00.000-05:00

Run a search for the word “Liberal” in Google. Just a few entries down, underneath the Wikipedia articles and dictionary definitions, is Conservapedia.com’s ever-brilliant perspective. Yes, it’s their word now. The conservative website (self-titled “The Trustworthy Encyclopedia”) defines liberalism in a nut shell, beginning with the “denial of inherent gender differences, leading to things such as allowing men and women to have the same jobs in the military (while quietly holding them to different standards)” and including “support of obscenity and pornography”, “limits [to] conservative talk radio”, and “opposition to a strong American foreign policy.” The accompanying illustration, The Socialist Brain of a Liberal Democrat, provides a nice summary of today’s understanding of Liberals and their silly, self-serving, and anti-American principles.

The term “Liberal” now brands Democratic politicians—it has become an insult rather than a political position. The word is thrown around with a new conservative spin, using phrases such as “the liberal media,” “tax-and-spend liberal,” and “dirty liberal hippie” to disparage ideals once considered to be Democratic. The 21st century Liberal is imprudent, radical, even silly—and to be labeled a Liberal is political suicide. But its connotation now extends far beyond the limits of its definition; indeed, popular understanding has altogether changed the meaning of the term. Today’s most powerful Democrats refuse to call themselves Liberals, instead opting for the elusive “Progressive” label. What the substantive difference is between these two ideologies is unclear, except that the former has been hijacked by the conservative wing to represent all that is wrong with the Democratic Party in general.

First of all, let’s go back to the origins of the word “Liberal”. Having its root in the word for freedom, to be liberal is to be generous, tolerant, open, and understanding. Outside of a political context, one can give liberally, have liberal amounts of, or be liberal-minded. And Liberalism as a political ideology emphasizes freedom and equality, insisting on individual rights and equal opportunity. Now, that doesn’t sound silly to me. In fact, it sounds a lot like the platform of a Progressive—or whatever it is that the Democrats are calling themselves these days. Yet Democrats have developed an aversion to the word, succumbing to the negative spin placed upon it by conservatives. Conservatives would logically demonize Liberals—after all, they are proponents of fundamentally different values and policies. Fending off the Liberal label only legitimizes the conservative smear campaign aimed at making the Democrats into something ridiculous. But why are Democrats running from the very principles that define their Party? If they are looking for conservative approval, they are certainly not going to find it by touting Progressivism in its stead.

To be sure, the Democrats are trying to cultivate a less “radical” image to appeal to a wider audience (for wider audience, read centrist voters). Liberalism no longer represents the noble ideals the Democratic Party once stood for—instead, it seems to belong in the derogatory word pool with the Commies and the Fascists. There is no conservative equivalent to this rejected term. Calling someone a conservative merely describes his or her political position, one with which you can agree or disagree. Whereas Democrats plug their ears when they hear the word ‘Liberal’, ‘Conservative’ just doesn’t have the same ring. Republicans stand their ground on conservative issues, while Democrats waver self-consciously between left and center. They are eager to please and easy to upset, and as a result have cultivated an image insecure in their own principles. The refusal to embrace the term is a concession of sorts, admitting that there is something ridiculous about the Democratic Party. Our fear of the word ‘Liberal’ gives ammunition to the conservative campaign against the very values Democrats claim to hold.

Political success does involve compromise, and alienating more moderate voters will undoubtedly prove fruitless. But it doesn’t have to, and indeed it must not, involve sacrifice. Relinquishing control of the Liberal label to the conservatives is a political defeat that extends beyond the thesaurus. The truth is, Democrats are liberals—but liberal is not synonymous with radical. We must recover ‘liberal’ from the conservative smear machine and reestablish it in terms of truly Democratic values. ‘Liberal’ is not a dirty word, and a Liberal by any other name is still a Liberal.

Veterans Day 2007

2007-11-12T23:26:00.000-05:00

I was walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.

He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."

It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.

Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.

We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.

Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.

What Were They Smoking?

2007-11-12T23:25:00.001-05:00

On Wednesday, when the House Education Committee considers reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, it will have an opportunity to abolish one of the most illogical and unjust pieces of legislation from the GOP’s 12 year reign of error. I’m referring to the Aid Elimination Provision, a 1998 addition to the HEA which makes students with drug convictions ineligible for federal aid.

This provision effectively denied reformed criminals and recovering addicts access to higher education, which was both coldhearted and irrational, since improving individuals’ economic status is the most effective way to reduce drug use and other types of crime in the long run. The Aid Elimination Provision took away financial aid for students with misdemeanor marijuana offenses, yet students with alcohol violations were unaffected. In fact, the restriction applied only to drug offenses –even rapists and murderers do not lose eligibility.

Between 1998 and 2006, over 200,000 students were denied financial aid. The provision was finally revised in 2006 to apply only to students who commit violations while receiving federal aid, but there are still a number of problems with this.
The Higher Education Act, part of Johnson’s Great Society agenda, was passed in 1965 in part to expand access to college by offering loans and scholarships to poor students. However, the Aid Elimination Provision primarily punishes lower and middle-income students who cannot afford college without financial aid. Furthermore, it disproportionately affects minority students because of the discriminatory way that drug laws are enforced in this country.

The presumption behind this provision is that students who are using drugs while receiving aid are wasting taxpayers’ money. Yet the law only punishes successful students since they already need to get good grades to continue receiving aid. Furthermore, the Government Accountability Office found no evidence that this penalty even helps to reduce drug use. It is simply counterproductive to kick successful, poor students out of college for drug use, increasing the likelihood that they will become a burden on the criminal justice system rather than productive, tax-paying citizens.

The Aid Elimination Provision is just another example of how the personal moral judgments of members of Congress have created an unjust and ineffective criminal justice system. Once again, the need to look ‘tough on crime’ makes for good politics and bad policy.

Veterans Day 2007

2007-11-12T18:37:00.000-05:00

I walking into my Defense Industrial Policy class today and heard a conversation in the hallway of the ICC. I was readying myself for 2 hours of defense policy and theory, when I heard a young man say something that grounded me back in the reality of it all. The man was a little older than me, apparently a graduate student, who was remarking that it was Veteran's Day and that the day used to mean something else to him.

He had been in ROTC during college, but I gathered he had done his time. He noted that he was glad to have followed the path to grad school instead of into the army professionally, because, "Heck, I'd probably be over there in Abu Ghraib."

It quickly saddened me to hear him say this. A once proud member of Reserves, he no longer respected the armed services as he once did, he didn't long to be a part of it any longer - it has somehow lost its shine, its pride, maybe even some of its strength.

Today is a day we should remember the fallen heroes and the ones who are still fighting, as well as those like this young man who have put in theirt time. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves the respect and dignity awarded to a person who fights for democracy and freedom. Every man and woman in the United States armed forces deserves more respectable leadership than one that would allow our army and our country to the army and the country of Abu Ghraib.

We deserve better. Our brothers and sisters in uniform have worked for such respect and it is up to us, as young voters, to make our voices heard and ensure the next group of leadership and Chief Executive don't take it away from them.

Please take a moment today to think about the people across the world fighting for us. The young men and women who are not able to be in college, begin their first jobs, or start their families because they are dedicating themselves to our freedom, but also are subjected these flawed policies and undermining leaders.

A McCain Resurgence?

2007-11-11T23:23:00.000-05:00

Amid all the hoopla about Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani last week, another endorsement got lost in the mix that may signify an even more important development.

Republican Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas, a former presidential candidate who is very respected among religious conservatives, decided to endorse John McCain for president. His logic: “I am endorsing the best pro-life candidate to beat Hillary Clinton.”

McCain’s candidacy has been thought to be dead in the water for quite a while now. The conservative base rose up in arms when McCain included a path to earned legalization in his proposal for comprehensive immigration reform. Furthermore, his unwavering support for the war in Iraq alienated his natural constituency of independents and Republican moderates.

But after all the long months of campaigns, debates, and mud-slinging, Brownback’s endorsement shows that this race could very well end up turning out the way most political observers predicted over a year ago. At that time, the three leading Republican contenders were Giuliani, McCain, and Mitt Romney. Giuliani is pro-choice and Romney was pro-choice pretty much right up until the start of his presidential campaign (in addition to being a Mormon), so many believed that the Christian right would eventually find McCain to be the only acceptable option and ensure his nomination.

No other candidate has acquired a lock on the support of religious conservatives. Fred Thompson seemed to be the perfect fit for the Christian right based on his solidly conservative voting record, but he has run an extremely lackluster campaign so far. Mike Huckabee has been gaining support among the grassroots of the religious right, but evangelical leaders have been reluctant to back his candidacy, probably because they fear he has no chance at winning the nomination due to his still-limited name recognition and poor fundraising.

This means that Christian conservatives might still end up backing McCain as the lesser of two (well, actually three) evils. Brownback’s endorsement is the first step in this process, and it means that the old and weathered warrior is certainly not down for the count.

Mark Penn is a Bum

2007-11-11T23:22:00.000-05:00

I don't mind people who support Hillary Clinton. I may make some noise about it sometimes, but I can understand why they do. Senator Clinton is a very smart woman, who understands the minute details of public policy better than also anyone. She is a good speaker and can be very charming in person. She is experienced in both domestic and foreign policy, and has been through enough campaigns to know how to win.

But nominating Senator Clinton is a very dangerous message to send to our country.

Our politics has devolved. Instead of nuanced, eloquent, and substantive debate about very complicated matters of public policy, ethics, culture, and law, we reward politicians who can produce the quickest, funniest, and least threatening one-liner.

Instead of respecting and encouraging a dialogue between those with differing opinions, we belittle the other side's ideas, claiming them to be the product of evil, hatred, and greed.

Instead of getting public policy passed as legislation and enacting important programs and policies, we engage in a protracted game of one-upmanship where the goal is winning elections every year. It seems that many in our politics today hope to win a long-awaited Battle Royale which one day, in the distant future, when the other party is extinct, will produce the agenda we seek.

Instead of bringing new people into the process, and inspiring our citizens to break out of their cynicism and work for a politics of producing a better world, we play to the lowest-common-denominator, producing bland proposals that aim to slightly influence a small set of middle-aged, middle income white men in the suburbs of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.

This old politics has to come to an end.

But Hillary Clinton, unfortunately, can't do it.

In fact, her advisors are the problem. Take a look at what her top two advisors, Mark Penn and Mandy Grunwald, thought of the massive turnout of young people that Senator Obama brought to the Iowa Jefferson-Jackson Dinner last night.

An estimated 9,000 people showed up here at Veterans Memorial Auditorium Saturday night and the Obama campaign claimed that 3,000 of them were Obama supporters.

“The JJ is a place to deliver a message,” Tommy Vietor, Obama’s Iowa spokesman told me, “but it is also a place to show organizing muscle. It shows you can get people to show up at the same place at the same time.”

At least two of Hillary Clinton’s upper-echelon advisers, Mandy Grunwald and Mark Penn, were decidedly unimpressed .

“Our people look like caucus-goers,” Grunwald said, “and his people look like they are 18. Penn said they look like Facebook.”

Penn added, "Only a few of their people look like they could vote in any state."

Mark Penn would be a top advisor to a President Hillary Clinton. If this is the tone and opinion of one of our country's potential top White House staffers, I think we are safer without nominating Senator Clinton.

We must break out of the cycle of cynicism and the stranglehold that the chattering classes of pundits, consultants, and pollsters have on our political discourse. Mark Penn is a continuation of the past. We should not let him extend into the future by voting for his benefactor.

Can You Say "Tempest in a Teapot?"

2007-11-09T23:19:00.000-05:00

In the state of Iowa, a scandal is brewing. No, it doesn't have anything to do with a stained dress or fabricated intelligence but with something far, far more urgent. Or, to be more specific, a lack thereof.

Yesterday, NPR Morning Edition aired a story in which a waitress, Anita Esterday, at a diner called Maid-Rite stated that "nobody got left a tip that day" -- and none other than Hillary Clinton and her staff had stopped by earlier for a meal. Naturally, when this little bit of news hit the internet, the campaign rushed to control the damage lest their candidate be seen as, well, less than sympathetic to the working class. Meanwhile, the Fact Hub over at the Clinton campaign refuted the claim, while a spokesman for the campaign e-mailed the folks over at NPR: "The campaign spent $157 and left a $100 tip at the Maid-Rite Restaurant. Wish you had checked in with us beforehand." NPR has since revised its story, but there are still questions circulating about where the tip ended up.

Perhaps the most poignant comment made thus far comes from Ms. Esterday herself: "You people are really nuts. There's kids dying in the war, the price of oil right now -- there's better things in this world to be thinking about."

Mukasey Confirmed as Attorney General

2007-11-08T23:17:00.000-05:00

Michael Mukasey was confirmed as the 81st attorney general late tonight, but by a very narrow margin. The Senate voted 53-40 to confirm Bush’s nomination, only six of which were votes made by Democrats. This is the closet vote of its kind in over 50 years. When President Bush first nominated Mukasey, his victory looked promising, and many Democrats viewed the retired federal judge as a “consensus nominee”—and the best they could hope for during the tail end of the Bush Administration. However, Mukasey is now unpopular among Democrats for his weak position on the constitutionality of waterboarding. In his October 18th testimony, Mukasey would only go so far as to condemn the use of torture for interrogation purposes, but at one point refused to define waterboarding as torture. This unpopular stance was widely criticized, and the attorney general’s success seemed doubtful.

The six Democrats who voted to confirm Mukasey as the next attorney general ultimately viewed their decision as a practical matter. Though critiquing his views on the state-sanctioned use of a torture technique, Senators such as Charles Schumer (D-NY) and Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) considered him to be the best—and safest—compromise, especially in Alberto Gonzales’ wake. Politics aside, Democrats and Republicans alike hope that Mukasey can clean up the justice system of late. However, dissenters fear that Mukasey’s position on torture already indicates a path towards a dangerous alliance between the Justice Department and Bush’s top aides, who espouse controversial anti-terrorism techniques.

All four of the Senate Democrats running for President—Clinton, Obama, Biden, and Dodd—announced their opposition to nominee, but were not present when the vote took place. Their presence would not have been enough to avoid the nomination altogether, but a 49-44 vote is an even closer call. That another disappointing nominee has secured a position of power—despite his overwhelming lack of support from the Senate Majority—stands out as another example of Congress embracing a defeatist attitude: Attorney General Mukasey may not be the right guy, but he’s the best we can do.

Rudy and Pat, New BFFs

2007-11-07T23:16:00.000-05:00

Today, Rudy Giulinai just might have secured himself the republican nomination for president. How you ask? By managing to gain the endorsement of arguably one of the most famous—and outspoken—televangelists of them all, Pat Robertson.

That’s right, Mr. feminism is a "socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians,” Mr. homosexuality will lead to hurricanes, earthquakes, tornadoes, terrorist attacks and “possibly a meteor” has publicly given his blessing to Rudy Giuliani, and it actually means something to his campaign.

In a press conference held Wednesday at the National Press Club in Washington, Robertson said, “It is my pleasure to announce my support for America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans”—oh Pat, just how much of your ass did Rudy kiss (and how much money did he donate to The 700 Club) to get you behind him? Although Robertson is staunchly against abortions, he has even stated that they were the reason for the 9/11 attacks (together with the gays, feminists, pagans and those atheistic hippies at the ACLU), and Rudy has remained cautiously pro-choice thus far in his campaign, Pat was somehow able to overlook Giuliani’s baby-killing ways and find it in his heart to support him in his campaign.

It is believed that Robertson’s support will drastically improve Giuliani’s standing among evangelicals, and could in effect solidify his position as the republican presidential nominee in 2008. Rudy has been struggling with the Christian-conservative base because of his slightly more liberal stances on social issues like abortion, but with Robertson’s endorsement, much of this hesitation is likely to evaporate.

And yet, I can’t help but wonder just how Rudy was able to finagle Pat Robertson onto his team. Was it his stance on the war on terror? Was it a “donation” to one of Robertson’s organizations? Or maybe, Pat was just a fan of this.

Ron Paul Raises $4 Million in a Single Day

2007-11-06T23:13:00.000-05:00

Still riding the wave of publicity he received after reporting a surprising $5 million dollar haul in the 3rd quarter, Ron Paul is now the beneficiary of a daylong fundraising blitz which the NYT reports netted $4.07 million.

This figure is astonishing for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that Ron Paul had almost nothing to do with this particular drive. The idea of staging a fundraising drive on Guy Fawkes Day (which commemorates the day when its namesake tried to blow up Parliament) actually arose independently from ThisNovember5th.com, and the campaign spread virally.

Thanks to this grassroots triumph, Paul has now raised $7.2 million in just 5 weeks, putting the campaign’s $12 million goal within reach. It also raises the possibility that he could conceivably lead the entire Republican field for the 4th quarter, assuming Romney doesn’t inflate his numbers with another $6 million of his own money (he will). Given the importance the media places on fundraising, how long could the GOP fundraising leader remain in 6th place in the polls?

Paul’s grassroots power may actually spell trouble for the GOP, however. He has not promised to endorse the eventual GOP nominee, and his fundraising power and internet support may encourage him to continue his campaign as a third party candidate, particularly if Giuliani is nominated. Is it worthwhile to note that Paul already made one 3rd party run for the White House as the Libertarian Party nominee in 1988.

This historic haul also suggests that the race for the Republican nomination is still wide-open, with six viable candidates if one counts Paul, as the national media will increasingly do. This dynamism is driven both by discontent within the Republican ranks and unresolved conflict between the merits of ideological purity and electability. While in other election years pro-choice or anti-war views would be a deal breaker for any potential GOP nominee, the sense that a tradition conservative can’t win following the Bush fiasco has created an opening for a Giuliani or Ron Paul.

While I still maintain that Ron Paul is too far outside the mainstream to ultimate have a significant electoral impact, his grassroots support and fundraising power are shaking up the campaign and ensuring that the Republican race will continue to be more exciting and unpredictable than its Democratic counterpart.

New Hampshire Still Waiting to Set Date

2007-11-05T23:10:00.000-05:00

Even though the filing deadline for the New Hampshire presidential primary was last Friday, candidates still do not know when the actual primary will take place.

New Hampshire Secretary of State William Gardner said that he will wait to set a primary date until Michigan chooses the date of their primary. Michigan has until November 14 to set their date. State law in New Hampshire dictates that the state primary must occur at least seven days before any other “similar contest”, generally interpreted to mean any other primary. Michigan is expected to choose January 15 as their primary date, which would allow New Hampshire to set its primary for January 8.

However, Democratic Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan has threatened to try and set his state’s primary date even earlier, which could force New Hampshire’s primary into December 2007. Some experts believe that New Hampshire would look ridiculous holding a 2008 presidential primary in 2007, which could significantly damage the state’s political standing in the future. This is exactly what Levin wants, as he believes New Hampshire has a disproportionate influence on the political process.

On the other hand, some political figures in New Hampshire are embracing the idea of a December 2007 primary. Jim Splaine, a Democratic state legislator in New Hampshire, is urging Gardner to set the state’s primary for December 11. We could be voting for president sooner than we think…

Bipartisanship Survives

2007-11-03T18:01:00.000-04:00

After last year’s contentious midterm elections and with the presidential race for 2008 really beginning to ramp up, it seems as if the political atmosphere of this country has grown increasingly partisan. The nature of American politics has become so polarized that we often do not vote for candidates anymore, we vote for party. In fact, I am reminded of something my Catholic high school history teacher told our class one day when speaking about his role as a Republican: “If the presidential election came down to Jesus Christ, Democrat, against Genghis Kahn, Republican, I would contemplate for a moment, and then vote foe Genghis Khan. Though clearly hyperbolic, as I know the man to be religious, this statement reveals something about our country that I will not categorize as necessarily good or bad, but is an undeniable reality. Therefore, as Democrats, we have been trained to despise Republicans as the enemy, to characterize them as evil, and work as hard as we can to keep them from attaining positions of power. However, if we can place down our blinders for a moment, there are instances, though few and often far between, where we can see that Republicans, as well as Democrats, labor for the cause of progressivism in their own right.

In early 2005, my parents, and many members of my small community in Smithfield Township, Pennsylvania, organized an effort, known as The Shawnee Preservation Society, to slow the reckless and environmentally unfriendly over-development of our area and try to create pressure for local politicians to abide by the laws that were created to ensure responsible development. Very quickly, my father, Vincent Della Fera and another Smithfield resident, Brian Barrett ran for the two supervisor positions open in Smithfield. (Within Pennsylvania townships, there are three supervisors who assume both executive and legislative responsibilities within the local government. During this particular year, due to one seat being up for election at its scheduled time and another being put up for special election due the resignation of the previous supervisor, two of the three seats were up for election.)

Mr. Barrett and my father, both Republicans, went on to run on a campaign that emphasized responsible development and environmental conservation. They hoped to remove from power the corrupt businessmen who were not only cutting corners on development laws and building oftentimes sub-standard housing, but also themselves in the elected positions to decide whether or not their own developments were lawful. After a difficult campaign, which included the local Republican leadership rescinding my father’s position as candidate and nominating a pro-development candidate of their own, Mr. Barrett and my father, now as a third party candidate and registered independent, both won their elections and took their places on the Smithfield Board of Supervisors. And, during their time as supervisors, they have enacted laws which protects local wetlands and waterways, strictly enforced already-standing laws regarding property development, strove to enact new laws which will create even more responsible development in the future.

Now, almost exactly two years later, the third seat on the board is up for re-election and the local conservationists and progressives are supporting a Democratic candidate, Christine Griffin, for the third seat. And, although winning the seat may prove more difficult for her than Mr. Barrett and my father, if elected the Smithfield board of supervisors will consist of three first-term supervisors, one Republican, one Democrat, and one Independent, all working towards goals which progressives can value. Smithfield Township, I hope, can then serve as an example that Republicans, Democrats, and others can work together on some if not many issues, in the goal of allowing government and politics to be a place where people can get past their differences and strive to make a notable difference in our society.

SC rejects their own "Favorite Son"

2007-11-02T18:22:00.000-04:00

It's official. Stephen Colbert will not be running for president.

Yesterday on the Colbert Report, Democratic Party Chairwoman Carol Fowler for the state of South Carolina announced that the election commission had voted 13-3 to prevent Colbert's name from appearing on the ballot. Apparently, they thought Colbert was making a mockery of the South Carolina Democratic Primary.

Personally, I think Stephen Colbert was doing what every politically-aware Comedian should do--getting people excited and interested in our upcoming elections. While Stephen Colbert's presidency was short-lived, it wasn't altogether a failure. Maybe, more than another flag pin, our country needs a good laugh.

Type rest of the post here and it will be hidden with a "read more..." link

For more information about the end of Colbert's presidential campaign... http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3812312

Bush, Senate Clash Over Attorney General Nominee

2007-11-02T15:38:00.000-04:00

The confirmation battle over U.S. Attorney General nominee Michael B. Mukasey reached a new level of intensity yesterday, when President Bush delivered a speech yesterday accusing the Senate Judiciary Committee of "holding up his nomination." The point of contention, of course, is the use of waterboarding, a form of torture meant to create the illusion of drowning, and Mukasey's continued refusal to clearly comment on the (il)legality of the practice.

This controversy, however important, should not overshadow some of the larger issues at play. If the American people are looking for an Attorney General who will stand up for civil liberties, they won't find one in Mr. Mukasey, whose past record suggests that he is of the same ideological brand as the Bush administration.

In the month following the September 11 attacks, Osama Awadallah, then a college student, was detained as a possible witness in the continuing investigation regarding those attacks. The judge to whom he was brought was none other than Mukasey, who, in addition to dismissing Awadallah's claim that he had beaten while detained, ruled that he should be held indefinitely, never mind he had not been charged with any crime.

During his confirmation hearing, Mukasey has made clear his belief in the power of the executive branch to act outside of legislative bounds. When the committee asked him if the president is allowed to violate a law passed by Congress, his reply was, "That would have to depend on whether what goes outside the statute nonetheless lies within the authority of the president to defend the country."

Can Mukasey really be charged with overseeing law enforcement in this country when he himself approves of such expansive presidential power? Whether or not the Senate Judiciary Committee advances his nomination to a full Senate vote, one thing is obvious: the investigation into his record and opinions is not a light matter. It should be conducted in a thorough and critical manner, regardless of the White House's contrary desires.

Powershift 2007

2007-11-01T23:07:00.000-04:00

Powershift 2007, a four-day national youth conference, will convene at University of Maryland tomorrow. The conference is sponsored by the Energy Action Coalition and is expected to attract 6,000 students from all over the country (including many Georgetown students). Powershift aims to increase energy and environmental awareness among students, and encourage political participation as well. Its goals are to “to make the U.S. Presidential candidates and Congress take global warming seriously, to empower a truly diverse network of young leaders, and to achieve broad geographic diversity”.

Powershift 2007 is the largest national youth summit of its kind, and will feature keynote speakers such Nancy Pelosi and Carol Browner of the Environmental Protection Agency. After two days of workshops and panels, the conference will travel to D.C. to lobby Congress and to rally on the steps of Capitol Hill.

“Power Shift will take the climate movement to new levels. At this conference, leaders of our generation will share ideas, learn new skills, make new connections, establish a national voice for our generation, and send a united message to our national leaders: we are moving beyond the same old special interests, empty promises, and inadequate results to embrace a new paradigm that leverages our strengths and achieves what is possible for our future. Something incredible is happening.”

When they stand up...

2007-10-31T18:23:00.000-04:00

The Iraqi army in training:

Oh Dear.

See John Cole

I like the guy second from the right.

Happy Halloween!

2007-10-31T14:05:00.000-04:00

In honor of this most glorious of holidays, here's a gallery that reminds us that even politicians love putting on costumes:

Election 2007?

2007-10-30T20:54:00.000-04:00

November 4, 2008. If you’re anything like me, chances are you’re waiting for this day with bated breath. But what about November 6, 2007—an election that is taking place not next year but next week? Back in my hometown, the local Democrats have spent close to a million dollars to regain control of the school board and reinforce their majority in the township board of commissioners. But this is an off-off year election, and voter turn out is predicted to be 20% at best.

When asked, I say I’m from Philadelphia. That’s because few outside of the area know anything at all about Lower Merion, the township adjacent to a city nearly 50 times its size. Politically, that puts me in Pennsylvania’s 6th U.S. congressional district, the 17th state senatorial district, and the 149th state representative district. These districts refer to our representation on a national and state level. Next week’s election, however, is an exercise in local politics. LM’s school board may be relatively insignificant when compared to the office of the President of the United States, but its outcome will have a huge effect on one of the ‘08 race’s hottest issues: education. The local public schools are outdated, inaccessible, and in various stages of disrepair. They are also far too small. Our choices? Raise property taxes to rebuild schools, or “make do” with the resources we already have. No surprises here: a democratic majority on the school board would vote to build two state-of-the-art educational facilities for the township. This would cater to the growing demands of students’ families, such as class size, handicapped accessibility, and technology. Should we fail to grab the majority of seats on the board, Lower Merion will favor the demands of large and valuable property owners, leaving the school system to quite literally gather dust until the next off-off year, meanwhile cramming more and more students into undersized classrooms.

What’s going on locally in Lower Merion has no real implications for anyone living outside of the township. So why is this important? For one thing, no Democratic presidential candidate will get those two new schools built, no matter how many educational reforms he or she signs into law. Local politics are so often obscured by national elections, whose issues seem infinitely more impending and important than the concerns of the sixty thousand residents of my town. But local elections have the biggest impact on the communities they represent, and some of the best national changes start at home.

Sure, I’m hanging on to every word of every presidential hopeful. I’ve got November 8th, 2008 circled in red on my calendar. But in the meantime, I’m sending in my absentee ballot, so that the United States has two fewer schools to worry about.

Optimism

2007-10-30T15:51:00.000-04:00

A really cool article forecasting a new progressive era. Simon Rosenberg and Peter Leyden argue that the disaster that is the Bush Presidency combined with changing demographics could result in a huge Democratic majority and shift in the political discourse toward progressive values and issues. Their major source is a poll that came out about six months back which focused on our generation. The numbers are convincing but the whole "permanent Democratic majority" thing is exactly what conservatives were saying after 2004. Karl Rove's goal was a similar permanent Republican majority. There was a book by the always unbearable Hugh Hewitt and this Weekly Standard article.

Of course its not that this sort of prognostication have never been accurate. And I'll take the optimism.

Ron Paul Frequently Mistaken for Legitimate Candidate

2007-10-29T22:27:00.000-04:00

Texas Republican Ron Paul’s quixotic quest for the White House has received a surprising amount of sympathetic coverage in the main stream press lately. A recent St. Anselm poll showing Paul polling 7% in New Hampshire, ahead of Thompson and Huckabee, raised a lot of eyebrows (yet the 5 other polls taken within the last month showing him in 6th place are generally ignored). Despite rarely registering above 1% in national polls, Paul raised $5 million in the 3rd quarter, almost matching the $6 million raised by the man who nearly won the GOP nomination in 2000. His campaign is driven by an internet-based cult following composed largely of young people. Even more startling is the attention and support he’s drawing from liberals.

On the surface, this following makes perfect sense. He’s against the war, favors abolishing the Patriot Act and restoring civil liberties, supports legalizing medical marijuana, funding stem cell research, while opposing torture and capital punishment. Yet this is all the main stream media seems to focus on when discussing Ron Paul, which might help to explain why so many people still take him semi-seriously.

Here’s what news stories on Paul generally neglect to mention:

Ron Paul wants to abolish Federal Reserve Bank and the income tax, which as the Politico notes are “issues widely viewed as settled since their creation in 1913”. Similarly antiquated is his support for abandoning the fiat currency system in favor of tying the value of currency to gold and silver and repealing the 17th Amendment. Yes, you read that right: Ron Paul wants to take away the right to vote for Senators directly, one of the landmark democratic achievements of the progressive era, and give it back to state legislatures.

Oh, and by the way, he also would like to dismantle the Environmental Protection Agency, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Education, the Food and Drug Administration, Medicare, Veterans Administration hospitals, and welfare, while pulling out of NAFTA, the WTO, and the United Nations. But who’s going to miss any of those things?

Other parts of his platform read like they were authored by a conspiracy theorist:

“H.R. 1146 would end our membership in the United Nations, protecting us from their attempts to tax our guns or disarm us entirely.”

“NAFTA’s superhighway is just one part of a plan to erase the borders between the U.S. and Mexico, called the North American Union. This spawn of powerful special interests, would create a single nation out of Canada, the U.S. and Mexico, with a new unelected bureaucracy and money system. Forget about controlling immigration under this scheme.”

“Both the WTO and CAFTA could force Americans to get a doctor’s prescription to take herbs and vitamins.”

“The Food and Drug Administration (FDA), in order to comply with standards dictated by supra-national organizations such as the UN‘s World Food Code (CODEX), NAFTA, and CAFTA, has been assuming greater control over nutrients, vitamins and natural health care providers to restrict your right to choose the manner in which you manage your health and nutritional needs.”

It’s not that I’m seriously worried about a President Ron Paul. True libertarians cannot win national elections because Americans are inspired by candidates who promise to DO things, not restrain, cut back, and downsize. While Paul can continue to delude himself saying “the majority of Americans are with me”, the bloated federal government that he is so appalled by came about for a reason – the people demanded federal action to solve problems.

The Ron Paul ‘movement’ is based largely on ignorance of his true extremism.

FEMA Hits a New Low

2007-10-28T22:28:00.000-04:00

Last Tuesday, FEMA Deputy Director Vice Adm. Harvey E. Johnson held a press conference regarding the agency’s response to the wildfires in California. In light of the agency’s catastrophic failures during Hurricane Katrina, the questions asked by reporters seemed to be a little too soft. For example, one of the questions was, “What lessons learned from Katrina have been applied?”

Well, it turns out, the “reporters” weren’t actually reporters.

They were FEMA employees posing as reporters.

In defense of his agency’s actions, FEMA Deputy Director of Public Affairs Mike Widomski said, “We had been getting mobbed with phone calls from reporters, and this was thrown together at the last minute." You see, the agency only gave real reporters 15 minutes’ notice of the news briefing. They allowed reporters to call in and listen to the briefing, but not to ask questions. When no reporters showed up, what was FEMA supposed to do? Give reporters more time to show up? Reschedule the briefing? Perhaps the agency was afraid of showing a weakening of resolve. FEMA showed once and for all it will never give in to the, uh, traffic. The show must go on--in fact, this time it actually was a “show”.

Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff promised “appropriate discipline” against those responsible but declined to say if any employees involved would lose their jobs. At least Chertoff is being honest with us and is not pretending that there will be real accountability for this incident. He’s clearly learned from the errors made by his boss, President Bush, who in June 2004 said he would fire anyone in his administration involved with leaking the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame. When Karl Rove was named as one of the sources behind the leak, the president showed us how much his words count for.

Since the firing of the employees who participated in this charade seems to be out of the question, I have another suggestion. If these FEMA employees were so eager to pretend to be reporters, why don’t they leave FEMA and pursue real careers in journalism? Then perhaps we could get some competent people into this farce of an agency.

Obama: Best Friend or Best Man for the Job?

2007-10-25T17:07:00.000-04:00

I like Barack Obama. I like him even though he didn’t put his hand over his heart the last time he heard the national anthem. I like him even though he doesn’t wear an American flag on his lapel. And I still like him, even though he plans to appear on stage with Donnie McClurkin, an “anti-gay” gospel singer. I like Barack Obama because Obama is trying really hard to get me to like him.

I can understand his desire for popularity—after all, isn’t that what buys a presidential victory? Still, watching his recent campaign performances, I can’t help but wonder if Obama is trying a little too hard. Take the senator’s South Carolina Gospel Tour, for example. The Gospel Tour features predominantly African-American acts, including “ex-gay” Reverend Donnie McClurkin and other gospel singers. This sensational political strategy, focused on a state where half of the democratic voters are black, was intended to be a vehicle through which this presidential hopeful could compete with Hillary’s popularity among black voters.

Yes, Obama is trying to be original. He is trying to build support from a grassroots level by taking part in a powerful cultural identity. But in his attempt to win the support of black voters, Obama has provoked the LGBT community. His on-stage companion, Reverend McClurkin, has made homophobic remarks regarding the need to “break the curse of homosexuality,” prompting the Human Rights Commission (HRC) to condemn the senator’s affiliation with the gospel singer. Instead of taking a stance either way, Obama attempts to neutralize McClurkin’s incendiary effect by tacking on an openly gay minister to the front of his tour. The situation that ensues is abominably awkward. Obama does not support McClurkin’s homophobia, nor does he want to take any chances at offending the black community by renouncing the reverend’s partnership. By catering to both sides, he seems unassured and hesitant where he should be decisive.

Barack Obama wants everyone to like him, and that’s his biggest problem. People do like Barack Obama. He seems to be a genuinely good guy. But the HRC is not asking for him to be buddies with a gay minister. They—along with the rest of America—are looking for leadership. They’re looking for a man with the backbone to stand up for real values and to make real change.

The Barack Obama I like tries to befriend everyone and offend no one. He cracks jokes, organizes concerts, and relates to voters on a personal level. But the Barack Obama I might vote for is a man with vision, passion, will, and the agency to replace ideals with actions. I believe in his message. I believe in his visions for the future, in his hopes and his fears. What’s more, I believe that he has the potential to make his dreams for our America into our reality. But when Obama favors popularity over principal, voters lose confidence in his efficacy as a leader. It is when he stands soundly behind his own opinions, and delivers his message with the confidence of a president of the United States, that Barack Obama becomes a man who voters can believe in.

I like Barack Obama, but I’m crossing my fingers.

Poll Shows Colbert in Double Digits

2007-10-25T01:09:00.000-04:00

In a sign that the media & political junkies are already taking his presidential run much more seriously than the candidate himself, Rasmussen has conducted a poll with Colbert as a third party candidate. More surprising, though, is the fact that the public seems to be taking Colbert’s candidacy more seriously than he does as well.

The nationwide poll shows that in a three-way race against Rudy Giuliani and Hillary Clinton, Colbert gets 13% of support to Clinton’s 45% and Giuliani’s 35%. With Fred Thompson as the GOP nominee (a prospect about as likely as a 3rd party candidacy) its Clinton 46%, Thompson 34%, and Colbert 12%. To put these numbers in perspective, this is almost exactly the same level of support as Michael Bloomberg drew as a hypothetical 3rd party candidate over the summer (43-37-12).

Even more impressive, Colbert draws 28% of likely voters aged 18-29 with Giuliani and 31% with Thompson, actually beating the GOP nominee in both cases.

TPM: “Colbert seems to draw most of his support from the GOP column, indicating a real unhappiness among Republican voters — either that, or conservatives who have watched his show really don't get the joke.”

Colbert announced on his show last Tuesday that he was filing paperwork to run in both the Republican and Democratic primaries in South Carolina, stating “After nearly 15 minutes of soul-searching, I have heard the call.” While to Colbert the run may simply be an ingenious way to promote his new book and television show, he is clearly creating some excitement as evidenced by the 829,845 members of his Facebook group and the frenzy it has inspired among the media.

Personally, I think it would be a fascinating social experiment if he were to take his candidacy seriously (within the limits of his character, of course). Imagine an entire campaign premised on sarcasm and scripted by comedy writers—debates, campaign ads, rallies, all with the intent of mocking the other candidates and the American electoral process. But perhaps it makes an even better point to poll 13% —more than Ross Perot got after spending $8 million in 1996—without even trying.

Brownback Backs Out

2007-10-23T15:15:00.000-04:00

Last Friday, Sen. Sam Brownback of Kansas ended his bid for the Republican presidential nomination. He is the third member of the illustrious group of ex-GOP presidential hopefuls, joining former Virginia Governor Jim Gilmore and former Wisconsin Governor Tommy Thompson. Let’s just say that Brownback’s decision didn’t exactly send shock waves through the political world.

However, Brownback’s dropout is the first significant one in the Republican field. About a year ago, when the presidential race was first getting underway, the three Republican favorites were Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, and Mitt Romney. Needless to say, the Christian right wasn’t enamored with any of them. However, they did have a strong affinity for two lesser-known candidates: Brownback and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who are both firmly pro-life and anti-gay marriage. The winner who emerged was supposed to be the religious right’s answer to the three Republican frontrunners. It soon became clear that Huckabee won the battle between the two of them. Huckabee was witty and eloquent during the presidential debates, while Brownback sounded stiff and uninspiring. Huckabee then finished 2nd in the Iowa straw poll, beating out Brownback, who finished 3rd. While Brownback barely registers on national polls with 1-2%, Huckabee has made a move recently and now measures in at 7-9% on Rasmussen Reports daily tracking polls. And a recent Rasmusssen Reports poll in Iowa found Huckabee with 18% in a virtual tie for 2nd, while Brownback lagged toward the back of the field with a measly 3%.

Now that Brownback is done, the religious right is faced with a stark choice: back Huckabee or support one of the frontrunners. Well, pro-choice Giuliani is completely out of the question, as Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council threatened that he and other evangelical leaders will back a pro-life third party candidate if Giuliani wins the nomination. McCain is still unpopular for calling Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson “agents of intolerance”, even though McCain and Falwell have made up. Romney has gotten some support from evangelical leaders, but the extent of that support is probably limited by his Mormon religion and his liberal positions on social issues prior to his presidential campaign. Thompson may have the most conservative record on social issues, but he has not made his faith a central issue in his campaign, unlike Huckabee. There is evidence that the religious right is beginning to take a serious look at Huckabee’s candidacy. In Sunday’s Family Research Council Values Voters straw poll, Huckabee finished with 27.2%, second only to Romney’s 27.6%. Among the voters who attended the event and heard the candidates speak, Huckabee received an astonishing 51%, while Romney placed second with 10%.

Many of Brownback’s staffers can be expected to flock to the Huckabee’s campaign, as the two are ideologically in step. With Brownback’s departure, Mike Huckabee is the only one candidate left who the religious right truly believes in, and thus has to be considered a serious contender for the Republican presidential nomination.

As for Brownback, he is expected to run for Governor of Kansas in 2010 when his U.S. Senate term expires. He is only 51 years old, so he can continue to dream of reaching the White House someday.

Dem Leaders Backing Down on Armenian Genocide?

2007-10-20T20:36:00.000-04:00

Amidst a heated political debate pitting pragmatism against principle, House Democratic leaders seem to be backing off their previous commitment to vote on a resolution officially classifying the killings of 1.5 million Armenians as genocide.

The bill, which addresses the killings of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire (modern day Turkey) between 1915-1923, passed the House Foreign Affairs Committee by a 27-21 vote on October 10. Although the bill has 218 cosponsors (over half the House), Pelosi now says it "remains to be seen" whether the bill will come to a vote before the November recess, noting that "other matters on the agenda that have to be dealt with first".

Despite the consensus among historians that the slaughter of Armenians constitutes genocide, the Turkish government adamantly denies the genocide label. Though it admits that many Armenians died around the time of World War I, Turkey contends that the casualty figures are inflated, and that the Armenians were victims of civil war and unrest which killed many Turks as well. The century-old event remains a volatile political issue in Turkey, where a law requires that schools deny the massacre, and journalists and historians have been jailed or killed in recent years for publicizing the event. The Turkish government even spent $300,000 a month lobbying against the resolution.

The resolution has provoked strong opposition from the Bush administration, which has carefully avoided the ‘G’ word in recent weeks, instead referring to the “mass killings”, “forced deportations”, “atrocities”, and “horrendous suffering” of the Armenian people.

As if we needed further proof that we are selling our soul for ‘victory’ in Iraq, the administration refuses to condemn a clear act of genocide because it fears provoking a backlash from a key ally, whose airspace is used to transport 70 percent of the air cargo intended for U.S. forces in Iraq and 30 percent of the fuel consumed by those forces.

While I understand the need to maintain good relations with an Islamic democracy, NATO member, and strategic ally, we cannot play along with Turkey’s policy of whitewashing history and suppressing dissent. The United States cannot be a moral leader in the world if we only stand up for human rights issues when economic and strategic interests aren’t at stake.As the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Adam Schiff (CA-29) asks:

“How can we take effective action against the genocide in Darfur if we lack the will to condemn genocide whenever and wherever it occurs?"

The Death Penalty, the Frontrunners, and Our "Crazy" Candidates

2007-10-20T16:25:00.000-04:00

This weekend Nomadic Theatre is putting on "The Exonerated", about the experiences of six people who were wrongfully convicted but still lost years of their lives on death row.*

Our justice system, though, is systemically unjust. It is racist, ineffective at deterring crime, often erroneous, and extremely expensive.

And yet... almost all our Democratic candidates -- including every single frontrunner -- support the death penalty. Clinton is a long-time advocate. Edwards believes "some crimes deserve the ultimate penalty". Obama, for all he is touted as a religious and moral man, and for all he believes that the death penalty "does little to deter crime", still would execute prisoners.

Perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised, but Kucinich is in the only one on the field who vocalizes what I am convinced is the only appropriate approach. "Morally," he writes, "I simply do not believe that we as human beings have the right to 'play God' and take a human life – especially since our human judgments are fallible and often wrong." Along with him comes Gravel, who has been silent on capital punishment so far in this campaign but was opposed at least back in 1972, when his book Citizen Power came out.

I'm dismayed that once again, it's only the "crazy" and "ridiculously unelectable" candidates who are talking sense. (It reminds me incredibly of that debate where it was only these two who would lower the drinking age so that young people who are called to die for our country could also buy a beer. Yeah.)

Why is that? I think Liliana Segura has it pegged: "They know that as long as no one holds them accountable, it is a political stance that costs them nothing. It’s their “soft on crime” trump card." Kucinich (and to some extent Gravel) can say these things only because he isn't considered a real candidate.

Cynical? Yes. Unfortunately, it also rings true. How crazy is Kucinich really?

*It was a wonderful performance, and one that I suggest you all look into attending before the show ends this weekend.

Bush is "setting priorities"

2007-10-16T21:29:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, the President encouraged Congress to be more responsible with taxpayer dollars, remarking that “every program sounds like a great program, but without setting priorities, the temptation is to overspend.” Yes, President Bush certainly has got his priorities straight. After approving an additional $190 billion dollars for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, he blasted Congress for their proposed $205 billion dollars of additional government spending, which he deemed excessive. No surprises here—President Bush has demonstrated, once again, his unapologetic hypocrisy. While investing hundreds of billions of dollars in an increasingly unpopular war, the President has criticized a Democratic congress that is desperately trying to pass spending bills such as SCHIP. His defense? “It’s important for our citizens to understand that we spend $35 billion dollars a year for poor children’s health care…my attitude is, let’s help the poor children.”

Yes, Mr. Bush, let’s help the poor children. Let’s start by appropriating the necessary resources to do so. The President has declared what he calls a “fiscal showdown” with Congress, in his valiant attempt to prioritize spending. The trouble is, his priorities don’t seem to be the same as our priorities. Bush’s version of fiscal responsibility involves pouring billions of dollars down the begrudging throats of our biggest foreign policy disaster, while refusing to fund significant national programs under the smug design of keeping our taxes low.

Bush is too proud of the recent improvements in the Government budget deficit. Sure, a balanced budget by 2012 would be nice, and the President is well on his way to success—by reducing domestic programs such as education and health care, while our war spending soars almost as high as the national debt.

I’m glad to see we’re really getting our priorities straight.

A Nobel Prize for a Noble Effort

2007-10-12T07:31:00.000-04:00

Congratulations to Vice President Al Gore on being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize earlier today. According to the committee who awarded Gore with the prize, he "is probably the single individual who has done most to create greater worldwide understanding of the measures that need to be adopted" to battle climate change.

Gore has promised to donate his monetary prize to the Alliance for Climate Protection, a bipartisan non-profit organization that is devoted to changing public opinion in the U.S. and around the world about the urgency of solving the climate crisis.

One story that is likely going to be rehashed now that Gore has won this award is whether or not he will reconsider a bid for the US Presidency. The DraftGore movement, based out of San Francisco where Gore lives part-time, has reenergized lately. They've collected almost 200,000 supporter signatures, and, last week, ran an ad in the NYTimes urging Gore to make another run for office.

In the past, Gore has been somewhat evasive in answering the question, saying that he did not see himself running for President, but refusing to rule out the possibility. Now that the spotlight is on him, we'll see if that promise stands.

Again, kudos Vice President Gore, an award well deserved.

Ann Coulter sucks (still)

2007-10-11T22:57:00.000-04:00

I'm not even going to waste energy typing this all out-- just watch this video. Ann Coulter's perfect world includes all Jews being "perfected" into Christians. Wow.

Hate by Example

2007-10-06T20:09:00.000-04:00

We hear about violence every day in this country. Our newspapers abound with stories of robbery and assault, and every day there is another conveniently edited sound bite about violent crime on our trusty television news networks. The way the news paints it, urban America is a not-so-safe place to live. But most of us at Georgetown—a haven for the “educated elite”—only experience violence from behind a television screen. We Hoyas are generally insulated from the everyday presence of violent crime in the D.C. area, not to mention the rest of the world. But last month’s assault on a gay Georgetown student hit a little too close to Healy Gates for comfort. Far from a mugging on the Lauinger Library steps, this crime has different implications for our student body. That the assailant is one of our own places hate and violence within the context of our own community, facing us with the unacceptable reality that Georgetown is not a bubble and that college students, too, can be victims—or villains.

Only a few weeks into the term, an anonymous Georgetown student was assaulted after being harassed about his sexual orientation. Philip Cooney, MSB ’10 (allegedly the son of Philip Cooney, Sr., former White House chief-of-staff of the Council of Environment Equality who was forced to resign after doctoring reports on the severity of Global Warming, which might explain why Jr. doesn’t play by the rules either), has been charged with assault with a hate bias. The incident was met with refreshing outrage on the part of GUPride, the College Dems, and other Georgetown students, which culminated in a Pride Ralley in Red Square on Tuesday, and a vigorous appeal to the administration that they must treat such incidents with a greater degree of gravity.

A hate crime on a Georgetown student, by a Georgetown student, may have come as a shock to the rest of us. But what’s more shocking to me is that it doesn’t happen more often. In a country where gay citizens are treated by the government as “separate but equal” at best—and even more frequently as second-class citizens—Americans are raised with conflicting notions about how to treat members of the GLBTQ community. Legislation, religion, and the news media all teach us in no uncertain terms that gay people are different, and an emphasis of that difference is only a stone’s throw away from legalized discrimination and socially condoned segregation. Under D.C. law, the punishment for a violent crime with a “bias/hate specification” is more severe than the same crime committed on an impersonal basis. And yet, current law discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation every day. Gay people are not protected under the Civil Rights Act of 1991, are actively denied entrance into the armed services, and are barred from participation in the most fundamental of social contracts. So why should gay-bashing be a hate crime? It seems to me that this double standard is the government’s way of shirking responsibility. The government can assault gay people in the harshest way they can—by denying them basic rights—but the average citizen is held to a more stringent standard. Here in America, it’s okay to discriminate against gay people, as long as you don’t hit them.

I’m not accusing the Georgetown community of fostering the rampant homophobia that spurred an attack on one of our own. On the contrary, I appreciate that the student body is shocked, surprised, and angry. But the reality is that we operate under a government that marginalizes the GLBTQ community—and an administration that has even threatened to veto legislation that would nationalize the hate-crime laws. If we can’t expect equality from the government, then how can we reasonably ask it from the citizens? In short, I hope the hate crimes legislation passes, and I hope that the assailant is punished to the fullest extent of the law. But I also hope that we use this as an opportunity to demand from our government the same behavior it expects from us. Real change needs to happen on a legal level, and that means ending the heterosexist doctrine by which we are governed. The attitudes and behaviors of the people just might follow suit.

Wow, Ann Coulter. Wow.

2007-10-04T17:41:00.000-04:00

So... Ann Coulter is smart. Like super-smart. Like so smart, she thinks all of her party's problems will be solved if we simply did away with women voting. It takes a really smart woman to think of that.

In an interview with the New York Observer, Coulter said the following:

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women. It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and 'We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?'

She is just so special. And by special, I mean speshul.

Seriously?

2007-10-04T17:06:00.000-04:00

So, apparently some idiot has been setting garbage can fires in Senate bathrooms for the past week. That's weird enough, but weirder is that they've done it at least half a dozen times over the past two weeks without getting caught.

Four of the fires were set yesterday between 10:45 am and 2:00 pm in women's bathrooms in Dirksen and Hart. You can read all about it at DCist, but I just wanted to bring this semi-bizarre story to everyone's attention.

'Cause seriously, who would do this? I can't imagine that whoever it is won't be caught eventually, and what thrill could he (or probably she) possibly be getting out of it? I may be quasi-delusional from a long day at work, but now that I'm thinking about this, I'm wondering-- what are the chances that this is someone communicating via smoke signals? That would be pretty badass. And with that speculation, this post has officially derailed from its original purpose of informing you about the sketchy SOB (Senate Office Building, get your minds out of the gutter) firebug, so I will leave you with the ever-wise words of Smokey the Bear: "Only YOU can prevent wildfires."

In this case, I guess we're talking about garbage-can fires, but still. Senate interns-- keep an eye out.

CNP - controlling the Repub party since 1981

2007-10-03T17:51:00.000-04:00

In the show The Simpsons, the Springfield Republican Party consists of select members of society who sit in a dark dungeon, usually during thunderstorms, and conceive ways to push a conservative agenda throughout Springfield. Members include successful businessman Montgomery Burns, congressman Krusty the Clown, the Rich Texan, action hero Rainier Wolfcastle, and Dracula.

This setup is strikingly familiar to that of the Council for National Policy (minus Dracula, plus Jesus enthusiasts). Formed in 1981, the CNP is basically a networking institute for conservatives who wish to influence various aspects of society into following a “morally correct” framework.
“Members include corporate executives, television evangelists, legislators, former military or high ranking government officers, leaders of 'think tanks' dedicated to molding society and those who many view as Christian leadership.” (check out http://www.seekgod.ca/cnp.htm for more info). Meetings are held publicly unannounced, and guest speakers, including VP Dick Cheney (Dracula??) rarely talk to the press about their addresses, which are not recorded.

When looking at the issues they are most concerned with, their list follows the typical Republican ideals – “conventional” values, shared Christian tradition, military freedom, and administrations that can do what they want. Original? No. Powerful? God, yes. The CNP can monetarily influence nearly any facet of society into following their instructions, thanks to their high-ranking members. An added bonus? Many of the members are not media-recognizable, at least not by their face alone. Would you be able to pick the head of the NRA out of a lineup? This relative anonymity allows the members to hold the reins of the Republican Party without worrying about over-exposure.

Now to put the conspiracy-theories into play. After a meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah, Sept. 29th, talks emerged of a Republican-supported third party candidate, if relatively “liberal” Rudy Guiliani gets the presidential nomination. As terrifying as the authority of this secret organization may seem, a split vote between Guiliani and a third-party conservative Christian (potential crazy-person) candidate would be a Godsend to the Democratic candidate. Let’s face it, with a white woman and a black man as our two leading contenders, we’re going to need all the help we can get.

For more info about the CNP:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=121170
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DA1E3EF93BA1575BC0A9629C8B63
For more about Rudy’s competition:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/01/us/politics/01evangelicals.html?ref=politics
For more Simpsons:
http://supak.com/simpsons/images/wallpaper/Republican-Party-Headquarters-800.jpg

SCHIP

2007-10-03T12:13:00.000-04:00

This morning, President Bush vetoed one of the most meaningful pieces of legislation to pass in the current congress. As usual, the administration sought to confuse the American people into believing they had their best interest in mind.

Dana Perino stated that the Bush administration was concerned that the cigarette tax in the SCHIP bill, which promised to help so many uninsured children, would hit the poor the hardest because they are more likely to smoke. This is a ridiculous statement.

One, shouldn't we be creating policy to discourage the poor (and all Americans) from smoking? Maybe a 61 cent increase in their prices could keep a few of us from getting lung and mouth cancers, among many other awful diseases. Republicans, stop answering to the calls from Big Tobacco.

Two, Mr. Bush, have you considered the beneficiaries of the bill? Oh, yes, that's right, the same impoverished people you are so concerned with keeping their cigarettes are just the people whose children need this legislation so they may have health care. What an admittance that this administration does not have its priorities in line.

I think my even bigger problem with the veto is this: Rep. Emaneul released a statement, in which he broke down the costs of this SCHIP legislation. This bill, which would cover the health insurance of 10 million children, will cost only the same as the cost of 41 days in Iraq. Despicable. Just over a month of killing in an endless, increasingly aimless, war or an entire year of ensuring that our great country fulfills a human right, that American children get the health care they need.

My new favorite thing EVER...

2007-10-02T19:24:00.000-04:00

Some enterprising activists have taken to the streets to express their displeasure over the current state of the DC Vote fiasco by affixing stickers that read "DC BALLOT BOX: Your vote goes here" to trash cans around the city. DCist covered this story first, and they don't know who is responsible for the guerilla marketing campaign, but it's fantastic.

For those who are interested, one more super cool photo:

Hillary's haul (and what it does-- and doesn't-- mean for the race)

2007-10-02T11:46:00.000-04:00

In an early morning email from campaign manager Patti Solis Doyle, the Clinton campaign (FINALLY) announced that it raised an astounding $27 million in the third quarter-- $22 million of which can be spent during the primary, and almost $10 million more than she had been rumored to have raised.

By bringing in such a large haul and out-raising Obama's camp for the first time, the Clinton campaign might just have solidified its already-apparent front-runner status.

Before we (and by we, I mean me) start celebrating, however, I think it's important to look at these numbers in context. First, and Chris Cillizza also pointed this out over at The Fix, $22 million is not "substantially" more than $19 million, especially when you consider that so far this year, Clinton's primary fundraising still lags behind Obama's by several million dollars.

If anything, Clinton's fundraising this quarter (along with Obama's) shows that this race has all but eliminated the other candidates from the running. The two campaigns are going to be running smart, disciplined, and expensive campaigns in the early states that the other campaigns have no hope of matching.

Beyond that, however, I don't know how significant this victory is. Very few people outside of Washington will notice these process stories (and ever fewer will care if they do). But for someone on the side that I'm on, it's nice to be on top for once.

And sidenote-- the "personal" note from Hillary included in the email? The Fix says it's a nice touch... I'm not so sure. I think I'm leaning towards annoying, condescending touch. Thoughts?

For Those Who Only Believe in "Climate Change"

2007-09-30T23:17:00.000-04:00

Campus Progress has a nifty guide up to the Top 100 Effects of Global Warming. Everything from koala bears to Bulgarian hookers(?!) is covered.

Because we don't want cute little Knut to turn cannibal (Effect #26).

"I DK, my BFF Jill?"

2007-09-30T21:26:00.000-04:00

I understand the title of this post. My roommates understand it. You understand it. (Maybe not you, Adam, but I'm sure if you ask one of your roommates, they'll explain...)

Apparently, the code is too complicated for the US Navy to crack. The subtle nuances of using initials and acronyms to represent larger concepts is far beyond the comprehension of this particular service branch, and in order to bridge such a significant cultural gap, the Navy has started leading trainings for its recruitment officers in order to make sure they understand the "youth of tomorrow". And sidenote-- Aren't we the youth of today? And the adults of tomorrow? Anyway...

A PowerPoint presentation that the Navy is using in these training sessions has begun to circulate the internet, and is worth combing through for pure entertainment value. At one point, for example, the presentation points out that today's typical teenager "has always been online" and "has never known a world without digital phones." Because of such global communications technology, his "best friend may be Chinese". Wonkette's reaction was pretty great: "My god, Chinese?? Ye gods, is nothing sacred in this godless post-9/11 Facebook world?" I heart Wonkette. (And I'm not just saying that so I can demonstrate my nifty knowlege of teen slang, I really do heart Wonkette).

Another great slide presented a pop quiz on teenage culture; questions asked of the recruitment officers addressed topics as diverse as the Black Eyed Peas, emoticons, the Video Music Awards, and Brangelina's baby. I'm not going to lie, those are all important parts of my life, but I was stumped by their question on Degrassi: The Next Generation. I must have missed that trend.

The presentation did eventually get around to more serious topics, such as our generations' over-reliance on planners (excuuuse me for being organized...) and our general apathy towards the Navy and military service in general. It seems to blame such feelings on our parents' "coddling", but I tend to think the war in Iraq might have something to do with it...

Anyway, if you want to sift through the presentation in it's entirety, you can download it from Danger Room, who was first to post it online. There's a link in the first paragraph.

OMG, have fun reading, and ttyl!

We need your Help!

2007-09-09T20:35:00.000-04:00

Help us host a lively presidential debate on September 19th by submitting questions for the candidates!

The College Dems are hosting a presidential debate on Wednesday, September 19th at 8:00 PM in ICC 107. We have recruited three Georgetown Government Department professors to moderate and, to make their job a little eaiser, we want to provide them with a list of questions they can draw on during the debate. That's where we need your help.

We have divided the debate into eight rounds, each one centered on a different topic. We would really appreciate it if you could each write a question or two based on those topics so that we can put together a list for the professors. Your questions can be general or for a specific candidate. Your questions can be on topics that have received extensive media attention or on more obscure topics. Post your questions as comments to this entry. The round topics are below. Thanks for your help and see you on the 19th!

Round 1 - Personal, character, and media questions (i.e. Senator Kerry, how do you respond to those who say that you are a flip-flopper)
Round 2 - Iraq
Round 4 - Education and Student Issues
Round 5 -Environmental and Energy Issues
Round 6 - Foreign Policy (Includes all non-Iraq issues, such as Iran, Darfur, North Korea, Nuclear Issues, and the War on Terror.)
Round 7 - Social Issues (i.e. Gay Marriage, Abortion, Gun Control)
Round 8 - Urban, Poverty, and Labor Issues

Too Chicken to go Vegetarian?

2007-08-30T11:25:00.000-04:00

According to a November 2006 study put out by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, the global livestock business generates more greenhouse gas emissions than all forms of transportation combined. Now environmental groups around the country are using the scientific study to encourage vegetarianism among environmentalists.

There was an interesting article in today's NY Times about the uneasy relationship between environmentalists, climatologists (and, specifically, Al Gore) and the vegetarian and animal rights activists who see a clear solution to the problem of global warming. Matt Prescott, Manager of vegan campaigns for PETA, charges in the article that "you just cannot be a meat-eating environmentalist", and his opinion is characteristic of the views of his organization and others like it. To them, Gore's decision to focus on vehicle emissions is a clear abnegation of the reality of the situation. Check out the article here. It's well worth the read.

2007-08-28T10:16:00.000-04:00

The Hotline's Wake-Up Call today said, "Number of days since we've had a good caught-in-the-bathroom-mid-solicitation scandal: 40." I mean, seriously, is this the party we want defining morals and winning elections because they are bringing religion back to government (since we Democrats supposedly have none)?

This is unacceptable. Just this summer we've had Senator Vitter, FL State Rep. Bob Allen, the Chair of the Indiana Young Republicans, and now Senator Craig (and who could possibly forget last year's Rep. Foley affairs?).

It's important to realize that I am not saying Republicans are evil and should be completely ignored as moral leaders. I am sure there are perfectly respectable ones out there, they just don't seem to be running for President. Even as they all say they will work to ban gay marriage, promote abstinence-only education, and ensure the teaching of creationism, these men can't be separated from their past of divorces, infidelity, and other indiscretions.

So, what am I saying? I'm saying that I hope that soon people will realize that even politicians represent the diverse, and human, population of our country. Maybe we can see that even politicians make mistakes and so we should be more careful to cast judgment on people's lifestyles and try to legislate the choices people are making in the way they live. No, I don't think we should hope for cheating spouses and rampant divorce, but I think we have to accept the right of all people to make such choices as free-thinking individuals (and ensure that those who have harmed others are punished rightfully).

I hope that one day both Republicans and some Democrats can stop worrying about and legislating against the gay population of our country, and that then their friends and coworkers can stop hiding in bathroom stalls and start living a healthier, happier life in the open. I also hope that the next generation of moral leaders in our country are not those who say certain things and then act in a different way. I hope that our generation will be one of leading by example. I hope that ours will live good, honest lives so that others will be influenced and understand how to do the same.

What do immigrants, child molesters, and 9/11 have in common?

2007-08-09T19:54:00.000-04:00

Tom Tancredo's office window, apparently.

Living in Arizona, I've had plenty of chances to seethe this summer at the barely-veiled bigotry of conservatives (falsely) accusing immigrants of everything, and then some-- but this just takes the cake. Notice how he stuck "9/11" in there as a reference point, too -- just in case the attempt to appeal to conservatives' basest fears wasn't blatant enough.

If only Tancredo had included a little bit of gratuitous homophobia, like specifying that these were gay illegals. That would have made people really mad.

Type rest of the post here and it will be hidden with a "read more..." link

Schadenfreude

2007-08-09T13:31:00.001-04:00

Yet one more reason to thank God you're not a Young Republican.

Forming teams...

2007-08-08T16:45:00.000-04:00

I noted while watching the debate last night that Joe Biden seemed to be doing a lot of Hillary Clinton's dirty work for her. He was incredibly outspoken in his criticism of both Edwards and Obama, allowing Clinton to stay mostly above the fray and then twice agreed with answers she provided. Towards the end of the debate, Clinton returned the favor, and agreed with a comment of Biden's, then moments later, he made a semi-awkward, semi-conspicuous plug when he referred to the next President as a "he or she".

Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post's political blog The Fix, saw an even bigger trend emerge, and he writes in a blog post today that "The Democratic field split into two factions Tuesday night at the AFL-CIO forum in Chicago, with Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.), Joe Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.) on one side and Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (N.C.) on the other."

Cillizza's argument is well-developed and deserves a read!

(And btw, that picture is not even from last night. It just seemed too good to pass up!)

AFL-CIO Debate Brings Out the Best

2007-08-08T10:21:00.000-04:00

The AFL-CIO debate last night with 6 of the Democratic contenders for 2008 might be best summed up by the Chicago Sun-Times - "The winner last night was Big Labor" - but, in this debate, there were many honorable mentions.

This decade opened with 9/11, continued with Hurricane Katrina, and is now ending with awful heat waves, mines collapsing, and bridges crumbling. Instead of divisive issues like gay marriage and abortion, the Democrats last night got to finally talk about things that matter to working people everyday.

From Kucinich's passionate lines about NATO and the WTO to the disabled man, with tears in his eyes, asking "What's wrong with America and what will you to do to change it?" to Hillary's "I'm your girl." - this was a debate for everyone with the voices of average Americans being heard.

It's easy to be pessimistic after such a great debate; it's easy to see the father whose daughter had to buy part of her soldier's uniform in Iraq and the woman whose husband had died in the mine in West Virginia last year and think about the many obstacles the next administration has. But, this debate made me optimistic. These trials had truly made these, and all, Americans ready for something more. They were ready to ask the tough questions, while putting themselves on the line on national television, and this gives me hope that one of those Democrats onstage can help to start bringing this country back in the right direction.

Basically, if you didn't see the debate last night (and who thought they wanted to watch another in the long series?), you really should YouTube it/watch as many clips as possible/read some live-blogging. This very real debate was a refreshing break from the campaign non-realities we all get so caught up in.

Why I'm a Progressive

2007-08-05T21:19:00.000-04:00

This might not be completely relevant to the subject of this blog, but there's a song I've been listening to for the last two days that I can't get out of my head. Written and performed originally by James Taylor, the song is called "Shed a Little Light". I heard it for the first time on Friday, during an episode of West Wing (where else?). The song begins:

"Let us turn our thoughts today
To Martin Luther King
And recognize that there are ties between us
All men and women
Living on the earth
Ties of hope and love
Sister and brotherhood
That we are bound together..."

It's a little bit sappy, perhaps, but at the same time, it's all I've been able to think about for 48 hours.

A few weeks ago, I was asked by a conservative friend of mine to define my beliefs. Am I liberal or progressive? And if I saw a difference, what was it? A few weeks before that, I attended a conference held by People for the American Way's Front Line Leaders Academy. We spent much of the weekend talking about the same questions: What did we believe? Why did we believe it? How do our beliefs manifest themselves?

I'm not going to say that listening to a little James Taylor changed my life. That would be overly simplistic and, you know, not true. But I do know that in this song Taylor is saying something, and it's something important.

There is a section of Ephesians (Again, with my West Wing education. It's possible I should skip the rest of school and just keep watching West Wing.) that tells us that we must be subject to one another, and now James Taylor's singing the same refrain. It's gotta mean something-- this responsibility to one another that everyone's talking about-- right?

If you boil down my beliefs... really reduce my progressivism to its most basic principles, I believe in that same responsibility. I'm committed to affordable health care, a quality education for all, civil rights and civil liberties, conservation, and helping those who need it the most. All of it is pretty much common sense if you start with a fundamental responsibility to your brothers and sisters.

Anyway, I just couldn't get the song out of my head. Give it a listen, and maybe post a little about your progressivism...

No Shock Here

2007-08-02T15:34:00.000-04:00

Newflash: A new study from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research "shows young people [are] profoundly alienated from the Republican Party and poised to deliver a significant majority to the Democratic nominee for President in 2008." The polling also notes that "Young people react with hostility to the Republicans on almost every measure and Republicans and younger voters disagree on almost every major issue of the day."

This isn't exactly a shock-- young voters aged 18-29 were the only age segment to favor John Kerry over George Bush in 2004-- but the survey proves what most of us already know: That the mistaken and short-sighted policies of this administration are screwing the next generation, and we're not going to take it in 2008.

Never underestimating the talent of Republicans for seeing only what they want to see, National Review contributor (and former Bush speechwriter) David Frum manages to find the silver lining in the study, noting that "White young people continue to favor Republicans by a thin but real margin of 2 points" and somehow blaming the whole thing on... immigration?

Republicans truly have their own reality. You'll have to read it for yourself to believe.

CDA Convention 2006 Recap

2007-07-31T13:40:00.000-04:00

Those of you who know me and my politics know I’m a big fan of the third way-type politics of moderate Democrats like Bill Clinton and the organization he once headed, the Democratic Leadership Council. Once a required stop for any presidential hopeful, the Politico reports that the DLC got dissed this cycle, as every single ’08er will be skipping over its convention in Nashville this week (even HRC, whose husband built the DLC into the political powerhouse it is today). But the Big Three, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards, (+Gravel and Kucinich, if you care, which I don’t) all managed to find time to swing by Columbia, South Carolina last week to address the annual College Democrats of America convention at the University of South Carolina.

I was there, and let me tell you, it was electrifying. Being surrounded by hundreds of other informed, active college students is nothing short of inspiring. I met dozens of future officeholders and political staffers, and it was refreshing to be surrounded by young people who can school you in political history by day, rattling off the names and victory margins of all our 2006 senatorial candidates, and drink you (should you be of legal age, of course) under the table by night.

Barack Obama spoke on Friday and wowed the convention with a powerful speech exhorting College Dems to "prove the cynics wrong", saying "let's show that you do make a difference, that America is ready to listen to the next generation." After the speech, the crowds surged towards Obama the way most college students would towards Dave Matthews.

Ask any College Dem, and I’m sure they’ll tell you which one is the bigger rock star.

391 days ‘til CDA 2008 in Denver! Hope I’ll see you all there.

Overlooked... maybe?

2007-07-26T20:08:00.000-04:00

Some useless historical trivia: in Joe Biden's last race (1988-- he's older than he looks!), the media widely labeled the Democratic field as the "seven dwarves"-- and whether it was accurate or not, the label was pretty catchy.

So I've been wondering... why haven't any Hillary supporters rolled out a "Snow White and the Seven Dwarves" label for 2008? It sure sets one candidate apart.

You say we have a revolution?

2007-07-25T23:54:00.000-04:00

A few ramblings about Monday's YouTube debate:

1) CNN tried hard to play up the "revolutionary" angle, but there really wasn't anything super exciting about the debate. Sure, the moderator was young, hip, sexy (ask any girl I know...) Anderson Cooper, but the debate was basically a town hall format transposed to the 21st century. Questions were, after all, screened by CNN, so nothing revolutionary was going to get through.

2) Instead of revolutionary questions, CNN focused on unorthodox delivery. I'm a huge fan of YouTube humor, and rednecks are funny, but is having people dressed as rednecks really informative in any way, shape, or form? And I'm not going to lie: I cried inside when they had a snowman ask the question on global warming. Here's a surefire way NOT to get one of the most serious issues facing America taken seriously: animatronic snowmen. I can just see Inhofe playing that clip on the Senate floor.

3) As always, the biggest problem was the format. Seven and a half people, standing side-by-side on a stage, delivering their own little 90-second soliloquies with the occasional Anderson-moderated response. Wouldn't it be infinitely more exciting and revolutionary to just let the candidates go at it?

All told, the debate was a huge improvement over the last few, but still left me disappointed-- not in our field, which is by all accounts terrific, but in the media that mangles politics time and time again. Until they get it right, I'm going to go watch Gordon Brown fisticuff his parliament on Question Time.

Cheers!

College Republicans: Chickenhawks?

2007-07-24T19:43:00.000-04:00

Max Blumenthal, contributing writer to The Nation, The Huffington Post, and Media Matters, recently released a short documentary-style video showing a behind the scenes look at the College Republicans National Convention. It's a must-see video that exposes the inherent contradiction in the pro-war views espoused by College Republicans who refuse to serve in the armed forces.

Thanks to Chris D. for pointing this out!

Unmarried People: Most Likely Group to Vote Democratic

2007-07-23T11:44:00.001-04:00

On myDD this morning, a post analyzing a recent Quinlan Rosner poll explains that unmarried men and women are wayyy more likely to vote for Democrats.

Go ahead and read RFK Action Front's post, because he probably did a better summary than I could, but think about this interesting poll. He says that marriage is a better indicator of voting preference than income, age, education or income. Bottom line, Quinlan Rosner explains that if unmarried women (ahem, young women...) would vote in larger numbers, they would probably swing elections everywhere - in our favor!

From a Edison/Mitolsky/CNN Network 2006 exit poll
Married Men voted Democratic 47%; Republican 51%
Married Women voted Democratic 48%; Republican 50%
Unmarried Men voted Democratic 62%; Republican 36%
Unmarried Women voted Democratic 66%; Republican 32%

Dean of Public Policy Institute is Running Again

2007-07-19T10:23:00.000-04:00

Dean Judy Feder of the Public Policy Institute announced at the start of June that she would again seek Virginia's 10th District Congressional seat. Upperclassmen may remember Ms. Feder when she spoke about healthcare policy with former Senator Daschle in White-Gravenor in the spring of 2006. She is a strong, spirited woman with great ideas on health policy and I'm very glad she trying again!

In the fall of 2006 the College Dems did some campaigning in NoVa, mainly for both Judy Feder and Senator Jim Webb. My greatest memory from this coordinated campaign work was the amount of people who did not realize Rep. Frank Wolf had any opponent. Rep. Wolf is in his 14th term and had never really had much opposition, so many just assumed they had no choice.

Take into account that Cook puts VA-10 at R+5, a 26-year incumbent with enormous name recognition (as well as having been in the majority for a while so he could tout the pork he brought back), and her mere 10-month race (as well as the DCCC's late arrival) and Feder's 41% doesn't seem so bad.

Feder has already filed the paperwork and begun raising money. In fact, she raised about $110,000 in the first month of her campaign, not bad! Her name recognition is up, as are gas prices, discontent with the war, and continuing disgust with the Republican party. 2008 just might be the year for her, so keep your eye on this hard-working member of the Hoya family!

"And so I reach into my pocket for some small change..."

2007-07-16T18:10:00.000-04:00

It was when Dispatch brought out the African Children's Choir that I knew last night's concert was going to be a little different from the band's shows I'd seen before...

The concert was titled Dispatch: Zimbabwe, but, to be honest, I was a little cynical about the motivation behind the show. When I first heard the band was reuniting for three nights at Madison Square Garden, I was beyond excited. I love Dispatch, and I was anxious for any shot to see them, now that they've been defunct for three years. The purported purpose of the show was to raise money and awareness for the people of Zimbabwe who are suffering countless horrors and have little hope or opportunity to change. It was a noble goal, to be sure, but not necessarily attainable.

"How much could a rock show do?" I wondered. In the end, I wasn't sure how much it mattered, and I wanted to see the concert so I bought tickets, and made the trip from DC to NY to find out.

When I made it to the Garden, my faith in Dispatch to effect change through music was tested even more. I stepped out of Penn Station and into a sea of teenagers wearing tie-dyed concert t-shirts and $200 Tory Burch flats. My friend commented that it was like our prep school "Lawrenceville threw up on the Garden."

The audience (including us) was there for the show, not the cause.

But when we made it inside, a bunch of NGOs were tabling next to the souvenir stand. While I bought a nifty new t-shirt, my friend stopped by the KickAids table, and learned about their efforts to use what they call "grassroots soccer" to bring AIDS awareness and prevention education to children in Zimbabwe and other African countries devastated by the disease. It was a pretty cool group with a pretty cool idea, and they completely understood their audience. For a donation of $10, you got a woven bracelet that had KickAids beaded onto it. I saw tons of people wearing them, and the group must have raised a decent amount of money.

During the concert itself, the band interspersed their (amazing) performance with short documentaries about the problems facing Zimbabwe. The half of the audience that wasn't too drunk or stoned paid attention, but the videos weren't particularly informative, to be honest.

The best part of the show, and the band's best attempt at fulfilling the mission of the concert, were the handful of songs during which they were joined by the African Children's Choir. The choir is a really talented group of kids, and they were able to bring African dance to a very American genre of music and make it work really well. The kids were the more effective part of the show for the audience, as well. Every time they took the stage, the audience completely woke up and started paying attention to what the band was saying.

Okay. Now that I've rambled for what feels like pages (and for that, I apologize), here's my question:

As progressives, we are for fairness and equality and education and healthcare and social change and political integrity. We are for all these things in America, and we are for these things everywhere else. If music or celebrity can be used to open the eyes and ears of people who might not otherwise pay attention, is that enough?

In the aftermath of Dispatch: Zimbabwe (and on a much larger scale, Live Earth) , can "awareness" events really effect change? Or are they (as I've sometimes thought) just vanity events for the organizers?

I don't know if it really matters, but it's what I'm thinking about right now.

Thoughts?

P.S. Go listen to "Elias" by Dispatch if you don't already know the song. It's about a man they met while traveling in Zimbabwe, and the death of his brother to AIDS is what inspired this weekend's concerts.

Kudos to Congress

2007-07-12T00:10:00.001-04:00

Kudos to the House for passing important legislation today that will make it easier for America's youth to attend college!

The bill, which passed 273-149 (47 Republicans joined Democrats), cut almost $20 billion from subsidies to lenders, increases available loans and grants, and affords loan forgiveness for those who need it the most. Although President Bush has gone on the record opposing the bill, it is likely he will sign it into law later this year.

While the bill itself is a huge step in the right direction, it also represents a larger ideal. This Democratic Congress was elected on a promise to do work for the American people, and its commitment seems resolute.

It's only been half a year since Nancy Pelosi was sworn in as Speaker of the House, and I look forward to seeing what she and her progressive colleagues achieve in the future.

A spouse by any other name?

2007-07-10T20:07:00.000-04:00

A lot of you know that when the New Jersey legislature decided to establish same sex civil unions a few months back, I was hesitant to celebrate. I had concerns that any institution that claimed to be "separate but equal" could truly ever be the latter. A recent dust-up with international shipping magnate UPS proves that the law is much weaker than even I imagined. On the front page of today's Newark Star Ledger, there is an article that describes the struggle faced by UPS employee Gabriael Brazier to have Heather Aurand, Brazier's same-sex partner, covered by her company health insurance. UPS denied coverage to Aurand, claiming that their decision was the fault of the NJ Legislature.

In a letter to Brazier, UPS wrote that the NJ Legislature, in enacting the state's civil union law, "did not go as far as Massachusetts and afford same-sex couples the ability to marry. Had the New Jersey Legislature done that, you could have added Ms. Aurand as a spouse under the plan." In other words, because NJ law does not call couples joined in civil union "spouses", they are denied equal benefits by UPS and 160 other companies who employ citizens of the Garden State.

Members of the legislature have expressed surprise that the law has been misinterpreted so severely, but I wonder how genuine their responses are. The applicable federal law on this subject-- the Defense of Marriage Act-- is clear. Corporations like UPS that employ people across state lines are governed by federal law, and federal law alone. The are allowed-- even encouraged--to deny benefits to partners in same sex unions.

The New Jersey legislature isn't naive. They have-- collectively-- been around the block quite a few times. In the face of this new loophole, the intentions behind their actions are questionable. Now that they've done something it takes off a lot of the pressure to do more. Did they pass the civil union law to stave off debate of the true issue?

Even if the legislature had the best of intentions, the law they passed was, quite frankly, a wussy move. New Jersey is one of the bluest states in the nation, and if progress is not going to start there, where will it begin?

Steven Goldstein of Garden State Equality sums up the difference between marriage and civil unions just about perfectly. "In the real world," he is quoted as saying, "civil unions are to marriage what artificial sweetener is to sugar. It's not the same thing and it leaves a bad aftertaste."

A Must-Read

2007-05-18T00:00:00.001-04:00

I highly encourage everyone to read this, an excerpt from Al Gore's new book. I was in the Senate gallery just before the Iraq invasion; I heard Robert Byrd's speech, and the questions that the former VP raises in this excerpt are ones I've been asking since then.

I know a Gore run is unlikely. Reading this, though...I can't help but hope for one.

Investing in "Blue" Funds

2007-05-16T23:17:00.000-04:00

This article sums it up better than I could:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_06/b4020083.htm?chan=search

Buy blue, invest blue!

Falwell is gone... What next?

2007-05-15T14:10:00.000-04:00

Falwell, the man who accused the Tinky Winky of being gay and blamed 9/11 on pagans, gays, and the ACLU (among others) has died.

Although I feel terribly for his family, for whom this has to be incredibly sudden, I can't help but wonder where his evangelical followers will go from here. Will Dobson take further control (which could be either good or bad, as he has begun to voice his disappointment in the way that President Bush has promised the evangelicals all sorts of things that he refuses to carry through on)? Or will someone new rise up? -- I don't see many young charismatic rising stars in the evangelical movement right now, so that, if nothing else, seems unlikely.

Does Falwell's death toll the beginning of the end of the evangelical movement? Or, perhaps, does it toll only the further mainstreaming of that movement, in which all our political leaders are evangelical leaders, and all our religious leaders take determined stands on politics, and in which we no longer need Falwells, Robertsons, and Dobsons to support the evangelical cause?

Democrats need to get religion now more than ever. We have our opportunity. Let's make sure the hole gets filled with an evangelical leader who preaches our values: ending poverty, ensuring the equality of all people, the power of peace, and caring for the environment (someone who can support evangelical Richard Cizik in the face of the steadfast opposition of Dobson and other evangelical leaders). The Bible can be used however one wants it to be -- let's play the game of politics and seize the opportunity to use it to our advantage.

Is Capital Punishment a Capital Idea?

2007-04-27T15:20:00.000-04:00

Last Thursday, a former death-row inmate delivered one of the best talks I've seen at Georgetown.

Prison Outreach, our campus group that tutors local inmates for their GEDs and in ESL, brought Juan Melendez to campus. He spent nearly 18 years on death row in Florida for a crime he didn't commit, living with incredible depression and in terrible conditions, until he was finally released in 2002. The story he told was incredibly powerful, but far from unique -- he was the ninety-ninth of 123 death row inmates to be exonerated and released since 1973.

The death penalty:

Kills the innocent.

Is racist.

Does not deter crime. (States without the death penalty have lower homicide rates than states with the death penalty.)

Costs the state an extra $1-$3 million per execution. (This money could be spent on education, cops on street corners, after-school programs, hospitals, and other public goods that would in turn reduce crime.)

And as far as Democrats and the death penalty?

"In 2004, ... the drafting committee quietly removed the section of the [Democratic party platform] that endorsed capital punishment." (source)

"Eighty percent of Republicans support the death penalty, ... and 58% of Democrats support it." (source)

I'd never formed a coherent opinion on the death penalty. I had been avoiding doing so, despite three years of work with Prison Outreach and the tidbits of information I get from my inmates about their lives in that state-of-the-art detention facility. This speech on Thursday, however, shocked me into awareness. This man was incredibly alive -- and it was just a fluke in our justice system that he still was. The fluke was in the innocent man surviving.

Unless you are from one of the thirteen jurisdictions without a death penalty statue,* consider writing your governors, legislators, and state leaders. Imprisonment is one thing. Death is another.

*AK, DC, HI, IA, ME, MA, MI, MN, ND, RI, VT, WV, WI

Just in case you forgot...

2007-04-25T18:06:00.000-04:00

Senator John Sidney McCain III is still running for president.

Seriously, this is getting out of hand. I've ranted before about the insanity (inanity?) of these repeated announcements, but this is at least his third.

He has had his exploratory announcement, his Letterman announcement, and his bus tour. Now he is "officially" announcing.

This is certainly just an attempt to recapture some of that "lightning in a bottle" that he had in 2000. McCain's campaign is struggling - granted, this is at least partially due to overly-high expectations: he has been the perceived front-runner for a long time, so any stumble can hurt him. However, he has been outraised by both Giuliani (who was married to his second cousin for 14 years) and Mitt Romney (governor of that bastion of traditional conservatism, Massachusetts). Giuliani also leads in virtually every national poll.

Perhaps spending the last four years demonstrating just how blatantly opportunistic a politician can be has hurt him. Oh well. Announce all you want, but people still won't forget this.

Oh, and this just in:
Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

An Argument for Gun Control that I Wish Never Existed

2007-04-24T18:23:00.000-04:00

Forget implementing new gun control laws. We cannot even enforce the ones currently in existence. Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student who massacred thirty-two students before taking his own life last Monday, should never have been able to purchase a gun. Current law states that anyone a court holds to be “mentally incompetent” is prohibited from buying a gun. In 2005, a Virginia court ruled that Cho was “an imminent danger to himself as a result of mental illness,” but because of bureaucratic inefficiency, states are slow to computerize their records and send them to the FBI’s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS).

Congress is belatedly working to fix these inexcusable shortcomings by focusing on a bill garnering wide bipartisan support that would supply states with money to update their background check systems and require them to include any mental illness-related court rulings in their databases. However, Congress is unwilling to go further than correcting the flaws in past legislation. Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), whose son was injured and husband was killed in 1993 after being shot while riding a train, lamented, “We’re not going to do anything more on guns—it’s just not going to happen. This is a pro-gun Congress.” Moreover, the National Rifle Association released a statement urging, “This is not the time for political discussions, public policy debates or to advance a political agenda.”

Why not? In times of tragedy, we should question our current policies in order to ensure that such horrible events never occur again. The status quo is not good enough. Obviously, any lawmaker who tries to exploit the Virginia Tech massacre to promote a political agenda is reprehensible, but by doing nothing to promote stricter gun control, lawmakers are insulting the victims and failing to take measures to protect the country from another attack.

How many others would have been killed, for instance, if Cho had decided to purchase an assault weapon? In 1994, Congress passed a ban on semi-automatic assault weapons (not including semi-automatic hunting rifles), but President Bush and a Republican-controlled Congress let the ban expire in 2004. No one is arguing for a complete ban on the sale of guns, but is it really necessary to have the capability to fire dozens of rounds without reloading? If your house is being robbed, you are in big trouble if you need dozens of shots to scare away or hit the intruder. For the same reason, Congress should also ban high-capacity ammunition clips.

Congress should also require background checks for the sale of firearms at gun shows. If current laws had been properly implemented and Cho had been prohibited from buying a gun due to the court ruling concerning his mental illness, he could have attended a gun show and bought one there. The Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act of 1993 requires firearms dealers to obtain a federal license, and when these federally licensed dealers want to sell a gun, they are required to check the FBI’s NICS. However, many vendors at gun shows are people selling their personal collections rather than licensed arms dealers, so thousands of guns are sold each year to people who have not had background checks.

Our elected representatives have a duty to do everything in their power to prevent another Virginia Tech-style massacre from occurring again. Granted, even with a complete ban on the sale of firearms (which I am not advocating), there is always a possibility that a similar tragic event could occur again. But this does not mean that Congress should acquiesce to the status quo; on the contrary, it should be doing everything in its power to make sure that guns are practically impossible to obtain by people who do not pass federal background checks. My friend Daniel O’Neil was brutally murdered at Virginia Tech, and it makes me sick to see Congress doing nothing to prevent other innocent, young people from being unnecessarily slain in the future.

The Apple iRack

2007-04-07T19:23:00.000-04:00

A semi-amusing take on American foreign policy from the good folks at MadTV.

Women in Combat (and Kathleen Parker)

2007-04-07T14:06:00.000-04:00

There's an interesting and oddly infuriating op-ed in the Washington Post this morning from Kathleen Parker (Wikipedia) -- it's the "Mother of all Blunders", she writes, that Britain allowed a woman with a 3-year-old child to work in the military. "Children in their tender years are," after all, "dependent on their mothers in unique ways" (even if Parker does not substantiate that claim and hand-waves it away to rest on the intuitions of a "good" parent -- as well as refuses to address the needs that children have for their fathers as well. And why do I get the feeling that she would be just as disapproving of a child having two mothers, which, after all, should double the unique goodness?).

She charges the West with the belief that "women can pretend to be men" -- somehow overlooking the fact that no one was "pretending" to be anything (it's not as if she cut her hair and bound her breasts, after all!) The woman in question was simply doing an unwanted job, and now she's getting slack for it from both sides of the aisle.

It seems that Kathleen Parker, the white-collar columnist that she is, would rather have her unwilling and un-psychologically-prepared brothers, husband, and sons go to war than any woman at all (assuming, of course, that she has any). And apparently she thinks that if men go into homosocial combat, they will be more likely to protect women from assault. My reaction? Utter disbelief. Men socializing only with men, not having sustained interaction with women for months at a time -- this is supposed to lead them to a deeper respect? *cough*

Her best point, indeed, is that Iran will get some fantastic propaganda out of this incident. What I don't understand, however, is why Parker, who comes off as a strong American, would want to spread that Iranian propaganda into the United States.

Let us perhaps rather agree that war is bad no matter who is in combat, and leave it at that. Unfortunately, I'm not sure Parker would agree.

Gingrich is Back, Still Kind of a Jerk

2007-04-02T15:56:00.000-04:00

If Newt Gingrich is indeed going to run for President, as many Republicans hope and predict, he is doing a hell of a job of marketing himself to the American electorate. First, he went public in March with the less-than-stunning revelation that he was cheating on his second wife with a 33-year old congressional staffer while publicly criticizing President Clinton for his own affair during the impeachment hearings of the late 90s.

Now, this week he gave a speech to the National Federation of Republican Women blasting bilingualism in American culture, arguing that we should teach only English in American schools so that people “learn the language of prosperity, not the language of living in a ghetto”. In the past he has voiced support for making English the official language of the United States and only printing ballots in the majority language, saying that bilingualism presents "long-term dangers to the fabric of our nation" and that "allowing bilingualism to continue to grow is very dangerous."

While this sort of rhetoric may appeal to the paranoid xenophobes among the Republican base who still feel that whites are becoming a disadvantaged minority in America, it insults a significant portion of the American electorate, particularly the millions of Hispanics were educated in bilingual schools and yet strangely do not live in a ghetto.

Newt also demonstrates a profound ignorance about the nature of bilingual education. It does not discourage immersion, as he seems to suggest (since there are still significant financial incentives to learn English), but rather allows children to learn basic skills such as math in their native language so that they do not fall behind other students while learning English. Gingrich’s claim that Spanish is a ghetto language would actually become more accurate if he got his way and Hispanics were denied equal educational opportunities and the right to vote.

Introducing the Georgetown Progressive

2007-04-01T21:06:00.000-04:00

The first issue of The Georgetown Progressive, the Dems very own political publication, is up on the website. It includes a cover story on how College Dems are getting involved in the 2008 Presidential Campaign, a secular assault on the Pledge of Allegiance, Sparknotes on Terry McCauliffe's What a Party, a thinly veiled reference to oral sex, and more. Enjoy.

Congress gets it right...

2007-03-30T06:36:00.000-04:00

Well, it appears that good progress is being made in Congress. The US Senate recently passed a bill which called for the beginning of troop withdrawal in 120 days, and when aligned with the House Bill, will force Bush to veto, once again showing his disconnect with the American public. I give kudos to the Democratic Senators (as well as Republican Senators Chuck Hagel of Nebraska and Gordon Smith of Oregon) for passing this spending bill. It seems most likely that the bill will not survive a veto, but the importance of Democrats showing themselves aligned and being blocked by a stubborn President can only help.

A sobering moment

2007-03-23T04:59:00.000-04:00

If you believe in prayers, then I suggest you send one out to the Edwards family. As you may already know, Mrs. Elizabeth Edwards, the wife of Presidential candidate John Edwards, has had her breast cancer return, this time beyond any point where it can be stopped. With treatment, she could live for several more years, but there is no curing it.

What is most impressive though is that today they seemed unfazed, even at peace with the information. Both want to go on with the campaign, and continue it shall. I certainly have gained a very, very deep respect for the both of them for their grit, determination, and endurance. Their courage is certainly inspiring, and I wish them all the best.

"Bigotry That Hurts Our Military"

2007-03-14T12:00:00.000-04:00

Alan Simpson, former Republican Senator from Wymoming, contributed a great piece about gays in the military to today's Washington Post.

Simpson rightly points out the sheer ridiculousness of discharging patriotic gays and lesbians from our armed services when we clearly could not need them more.

Check it out...

Shouldn't I be surprised?

2007-03-05T00:02:00.000-05:00

When I first read in the Washington Post about the Walter Reed scandal involving the mistreatment of soldiers returning to Iraq, I should've been surprised. I should be shocked that our President, a man who "supports the troops", would allow such a thing to happen, but after Hurricane Katrina and Iraq, all I can do is simply shake my head and sigh.

In today's NY Times Paul Krugman wrote an article about something that was also not very shocking. To no one's surprise, the veteran's hospitals have, of course, been privatized and care has severely restricted. For those of you who do not pay to see the editorial, here are just a couple points (in my words) that Mr. Krugman makes:

- Many services to our soldiers are no longer free. Now they must pay hundreds of dollars a month just for the food.
- Any soldier who is making over $27,000 and is not facing a combat-related condition or has not been in combat recently will be denied assistance.

This is all of course on top of the neglect of soldiers who have fought virtuously in Iraq only to be repaid with the stupidity of the Bush administration, who once again thought they could contract out the work of the government. The government can be messy and inefficient, but groups like FEMA and the Dept of Veterans' Affairs and THE US MILITARY were (and at least in the military still are) not known for being cold, uncaring, and being all about the dollar. At least under Clinton all three were able to work efficiently without Halliburton (two of the CEOs of the companies given private contracts were former Halliburton employees, go figure).

What this administration doesn't get, and what Walter Reed makes clearly obvious, is that there are some things that are best not to contract out. Outside companies are always looking to fatten their own wallets, and some things are best left to a government which isn't always looking for a profit (not to mention the brain drain at FEMA and Walter Reed caused by privatization). I think it's time we stop handing money over to people who want to get rich and start using it for the people who have needed it, Iraqis, Louisianans, and our soldiers.

He's Spent Enough Time With His Family

2007-03-01T17:39:00.000-05:00

According to the Post, Mark Warner is considering challenging John Warner in a run for the VA Senate in 2008. The popular former governor and one-time presidential prospect is easily the Democrats’ best chance at ousting the admired 5-term incumbent. If this electoral wet dream materializes (and the 80 year old Republican decides he has one more term in him) the race would be a rematch of the 1996 campaign, when John defeated Mark by 5 points. The VA political environment has changed markedly in the past decade, however. By the end of his term as governor, Warner had an approval rating of over 80%, and was succeeded by another Democrat, Tim Kaine. The state continued its steady leftward shift in 2006 when Jim Webb beat Sen. George Allen in one of the closest races in the nation. The prospect of a Warner-Warner match-up presents the Dems with an exciting an unexpected pickup opportunity; without Mark, however, the race won’t even be competitive.

McCain is in...still

2007-02-28T23:09:00.000-05:00

According to the BBC and CNN, McCain is in for 2008. In case the exploratory committee didn't generate enough press. Additionally, there will be a formal announcement in "early April."

Damn it, just tell us you're running and let's be on with it.

I hate this ludicrous, multiple-announcement bit. At least Sen. Obama seemed to actually be considering it while his exploratory committee was operational. McCain has a third "official" announcement coming up, apparently, in April.

If you can't get press for something other than an announcement, you aren't worth the time anyway.

An Interesting Headline:

2007-02-28T00:48:00.000-05:00

Over at CBS News:

Thieves Break Into N.H. Dem Headquarters

No word if G. Gordon Liddy was involved yet, but in all likelihood, this was probably just some stupid kids. But who knows what tomorrow's news cycle will bring?

On the other hand, if this is somehow tied to major Republicans, I still have my doubts. if the Iraq War, WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Valerie Plame, Katrina, Gitmo, and a complete lack of accountability aren't enough to bring down this administration, I have a hard time believing that "breaking and entering" is going to ever get the job done.

Why Al Gore?

2007-02-27T10:54:00.000-05:00

I like Al Gore. He's a nice guy, obviously very intelligent, a good politician, very experienced, and pretty funny. He also made a great movie and was smart enough to be against Iraq from the start, and he probably has more domestic, foreign policy, legislative, and executive experience than anyone currently running for President. Hell, he was even elected President already!

But I just can't get excited about him. Maybe it's because while I certainly believe that we need to seriously protect our environment and invest in renewable energy, the environment and global warming is not among the top issues for me.

But on a more important note, why would anyone want Al Gore to be President, not that he wouldn't be a very good one, but what urge do you have for him to run, say over someone like Gary Hart or Mario Cuomo or any of the older, more experienced, smart, and great old hands of the Democratic party who have been out of it for a while. Why Al Gore?

Seriously, tell me.

A break for the Democrats in 2008?

2007-02-25T15:39:00.000-05:00

Finally, it seems as if the Democrats will receive some much needed help in the next election, and ironically, it could come from the conservative right. In an article in Saturday, February 24th edition of the New York Times, a secretive right-wing group called the Council for National Policy is still looking for a promising candidate. The candidates they're looking at are Senator Sam Brownback and former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, both which have a snowball's chance in hell of winning the Republican nomination.

While it certainly isn't time to pop champagne corks, the conservative right has become more and more important in the Republican Party in both money and manpower. If someone like McCain or Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee, than their very right-sided view of Iraq will probably split moderates, while their views on social issues (Giuliani) or disdain for the far-right (McCain) could keep the religious republicans home, and the importance of these people in the last presidential election has been stated numerous times. So let's just hope that the in-fighting continues.

A New Outlook on '08

2007-02-24T18:52:00.000-05:00

With Vilsack dropping out of the race, the fundamental dynamics of the race for 2008 have changed. Vilsack was never a big player, but the fact that he was from Iowa had a chance of putting one of the three frontrunners in a devastating fourth place finish.

No longer is that possible. With Vilsack out, Hillary, Obama, and Edwards will surely each place in the top three, meaning Iowa is now a less decisive state, since no one will be eliminated or severely weakened by Iowa. The field will merely be sorted.

With Iowa and New Hampshire likely to each move up a week, Nevada actually becomes more important, and so do New Hampshire and South Carolina. If any of the top three win in Iowa, it may or may not give them momentum into New Hampshire, which will likely give Obama or Clinton a win. If Clinton were to win both Iowa and New Hampshire, I think there is really no chance of preventing her steamroll to the nomination. But if Edwards or Obama wins in Iowa, and Obama wins in New Hampshire, Nevada becomes a contest between Obama and Edwards and South Carolina a contest between all three candidates. Even if Biden or Richardson or Dodd were to win second or third in any of these contests, the sheer number (approaching 20 now) of states with wealthy media markets on February 5th eliminate the chance of any of the second tier candidates winning without coming in first in one of the first four states. With the possibility that Florida could move up to the middle of January, that will probably boost Clinton, and give her a delegate lead heading into February 5th.

February 5th could, if Clinton wins the first four or five contests, be a coronation. If the top three split the first four or five states, I think you are likely to see Clinton emerge with a delegate lead but just barely, with Obama winning a huge chunk of delegates and Edwards taking a number of states himself.

With this split decision, each of the other second tier candidates will drop out and Edwards, Clinton, and Obama will split up the rest of February's winnings until the minnier Super Tuesday on March 6th.

That day will likely see Ohio, Georgia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and Maryland take center stage, and you can expect Obama and Edwards to do better than Clinton in those states.

We are then likely to see no candidate emerging with a majority of delegates and head into the August convention with no clear winner. There will be a convention fight and after one or two ballots, Edwards, who I think will come in third, will throw his support to Obama and give him the nomination over Clinton.

I know this seems biased, but I think that unless Clinton wins Iowa and New Hampshire, this is the situation that will play out. Tell me what you think.

Where's the serious moderate?

2007-02-23T16:33:00.000-05:00

With Tom Vilsack dropping out of the race, I have become dismayed. As a democratic moderate, I have seen candidate after candidate drop out of the race. First I volunteered for former Virginia Governor Mark Warner, who dropped out of the race for family reasons. Next came Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana, who dropped out probably because of a bleak future at fundraising. Finally, we've come to Mr. Vilsack, who was not as moderate as the other two, but nonetheless was in my opinion the only one who had sofar taken clear strong stances.

The need for a moderate candidate may not seem so obvious for more liberal-minded people, but this party is a very large part moderate now. We see candidates who regularly tote the party line, but I don't see a declared candidate who can stand a chance in states in the South, the Rockies, or the Prarie States to Republicans like McCain and Giuliani. Being in constant communication with people back home in Ohio (and from a very conservative 2nd district), the only democratic candidate that even sparks any interest is Senator Obama, but I doubt that his amazing rhetorical ability will be able to see him through to election.

As for the future, well, I only see one candidate that even peaks my interest. Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico would be the best moderate candidate available. He's fiscally and economically smart, creating job growth and lowering unemployment, and began turning around a state that chronically lags behind in virtually every category, from health care to teacher's salaries. Even Steve Forbes, President and CEO of Forbes, inc., has lavished praise on Governor Richardson. His amazing foreign policy record doesn't hurt either (4 Nobel Peace Prize nominations and being former US Ambassador to the UN will give him more than enough credibility). But enough of my dreaming. He'll probably drop out too.

Vilsack Drops Out

2007-02-23T12:35:00.000-05:00

Tom Vilsack dropped out of the race for President today.

I was not a fan of Tom Vilsack, he was a good man, and I hear, from my Iowa sources, a good governor. But he was not particularly inspiring, and I never considered lending him my support.

But I do regret his decision to leave the race. Tom Vilsack was the only serious candidate advocating for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq and a cutoff of funding for the war by Congress. He was the only one committed to a carbon-neutral campaign for President, and the candidate with probably the most comprehensive understanding of energy policy, his pet policy.

He couldn't continue the race because of money. With more than two-thirds of the state either already moved up or planning to move up their primaries and caucuses to a six week window between January 1st and February 15th, you would need approximately $50 million cash on hand in January 2008 and probably having raised over $100 million by 2008 to be truly competitive for the nomination.

These are absurd amounts of money, and they rise exponentially each cycle, with the money increasingly going into television advertising that has been proven to have less and less effect on fewer and fewer voters each cycle.

This presidential race is a mess. We need to completely reform the way we run campaigns and hold elections in this country, and we need to do it now.

We need to make some new laws that reform our system, but more importantly, we need to have politicans and political professionals change the way they do business. We need to stop using television advertising. We need to spread out the primary calendar, by having both parties agree to a new timeframe. We need to focus more on real debate, about real ideas and policies and stop having useless debates with time limits and rules.

We've lost our politics, and in a lot of ways, the American soul. If good guys like Tom Vilsack can't run for President because they can't raise the money, then we have a problem. McCain-Feingold was a disaster. We need a public financing system that requires candidates to use a limited amount of taxpayer money and reduces the costs of campaigns. If we need to pass a constitutional amendment to do it, then so be it, but we cannot keep doing what we're doing.

Fifty years ago, candidates for Congress could upset long-term incumbents with $50,000 in today's dollars. Now, you need at least $2 million bucks. That's not right.

The internet provides a new, low-cost method for candidates to use to get their message out. Candidates should use it more and rely on it more to promote themselves and use television less, considering that most people, because of TiVo or Cable or just a general tuning out of commercials really won't be affected by TV ads anymore. For God's sake, most people under the age of 30 barely watch actual television anymore, I know that I basically watch all my TV shows on the internet.

And I really hope that the Clinton, Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden campaigns can mutually agree to raise and spend less than $50 million total over the next year. It's just not a fair fight when Clinton and Obama have $100 million and Edwards has $70 million dollars and Richardson, Biden, and Dodd have only $20 million. That's just not a contest anymore.

Give me your suggestions on how to fix the system.

Goodies

2007-02-22T18:52:00.000-05:00

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in a cat fight! As Kramer would say, maybe they'll start kissing!

Kucinich auditioned in Nevada (make sure you pronounce it right or you'll be Stephanopoulosed) yesterday to be Spinning-Instructor-in-Chief.

Mike Gravel has a $250 suit. When asked whether it was made by American workers, he said it was made in the land of has-beens and long-shots.

Bill Richardson wants Democrats to run a positive campaign. Didn't he get this memo?

Al Gore will win the Oscar for Best Documentary on Sunday. When asked what he will wear, he said it would be a carbon-neutral Gucci see-through dress.

Prince Harry wants to go to Abu Ghraib prison when he gets to Iraq. He hears the sex there is kinkier than at Buckingham palace.

That's a wrap!

Quick bit of good news

2007-02-20T16:26:00.000-05:00

As of today, February 20, 2007, we have less than 700 days until Bush/Cheney leave office.

January 20, 2009: The End of an Error.

Good luck on midterms!

The Revelations of High Schoolers

2007-02-20T10:48:00.000-05:00

Like many Georgetown students this week, I attended the 41st annual North American Invitational Model UN; despite being a mouthful, I found the conference a great opportunity to mix with kids much younger than me and perhaps a little more naïve, perhaps a bit more jaded. Chairing NATO was an enjoyable enterprise, but on the last day I was startled by one of the high schooler’s comments, apparently, Mr. Norway thought it inappropriate to speak out against the surge, apparently it was un-American to provoke thoughtful discussion. While I myself acknowledged that our alternatives are limited and grim; we can pull-out unilaterally (much as we went in) and destabilize the Middle East, we can entrench ourselves in our very own quagmire, or we could devlove power to the Iraqis (which worked oh so well in Vietnam); the only way to solve this problem is for the best and the brightest (including little high school model uners) to intelligently discuss, criticize, and question current policy.

The fact that a 17 year old could be so despondent, so dejected, so jaded and unthinking, and so unwilling to live out the virtues of free expression indicates a growing lack of faith and instrumentation in our own democracy. Unfortunately, this new age of partisan polarity and animosity produces too many outlooks such as this. You are either with us or with the terrorists. Democracy is premised on nuance, there are varying shades of grey on issues like abortion, welfare, and of course, Iraq. Am I providing aid and comfort to the terrorists by arguing against a failed policy in Iraq? I surely think not. Is Jack Murtha a hedonistic America hater because he wants to prevent the surge, the countless unnecessary deaths, the pain and torment of one more flag draped coffin? No, he is fighting for what he believes in. Am I exercising my rights as an American citizen to convincingly articulate the errors and falsities in our policy? I think so.

So, herein lies the rub. Since Bush spoke before Congress three days after 9/11 (September 14, 2001) the war on terror or Islamo-fascism as Tony Snow has taken to calling it, has been an us vs. them battle (think Heart of Darkness, if you will). Is this an existential fight? Yes, it certainly is; concurrent with Huntington’s somewhat bellicose thesis, we may be seeing the opening salvo of the Clash of Civilizations. Nevertheless, it cannot and should not be so simple as you are either with ‘us’ or with them. This is a fight for the very essence of our democracy. If we extol the virtues of democracy in Iraq and yet subvert its basic premise by calling everyone in opposition un-American we seem to compromise our own moral and ideological standing, we also let the terrorists win (the want us to shudder in fear, they want to end our way of life as we know it, they want to do away with democracy and institute a new age caliphate--they've succeeded to certain degrees in all of these aspects).

I may not agree with Bush’s policy, I find it incomplete, idiotic, and useless, but I do support our troops. One of my friends from high school has been to Anbar twice, 20 and traumatized, he will never be the same, even assuming he comes back in one piece. But, we need to have a thoughtful discussion about these resolutions before filibustering non-binding resolutions of protest, before head-longedly launching into another Vietnam and losing another generation to the genocidal rampages of war. Iraq and the larger War on Terror are moral issues and speech and writing are our best methods of protest; no one should be silenced.

Al Franken Is In

2007-02-14T16:51:00.000-05:00

My favorite Senate race this year will be in Minnesota, where one of my favorite comedians and now politicians, announced today that he will be taking on turncoat Republican Norm Coleman. Coleman used to be a Democrat who switched parties and has turned seriously conservative since he beat Walter Mondale in 2002 after Senator Paul Wellstone died in a plane crash in October 2002.

Wellstone was a great man, who believed passionately in progressive values, and was quite inspirational right up to death. Coleman's tenure in the Senate has been dissimilarly unremarkable, with him taking a back seat to other Republican Senators and voting the White House agenda 90% of the time since he's been in the Senate. This coming from a guy who only took 49.5% of the vote in 2002 after his opponent died and a washed-up former Vice President ran with only two weeks to campaign. Bush lost Minnesota, which has the record of being the longest-standing Democratic state in the nation, by more than five points in 2004. Minnesota hasn't voted for a Republican for President since the 1972 Nixon landslide. Amy Klobuchar cleaned up in 2006, beating GOP poster boy Mark Kennedy by 22 points.

People say Franken can't win, but he is extremely intelligent (he went to Harvard), grew up in Minnesota (something Norm Coleman did not do, he grew up in New York), and will be able to raise boatloads of cash. Franken connects with Minnesotans who have a quirky Midwestern populist streak, and will be formidable.

Watch this video and I think you'll understand why I think that Franken will be the next Senator from Minnesota.