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).

read more...

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

read more...

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.

read more...

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.

read more...

“The term genocide is counter to the facts of what is really occurring in Darfur.” -Andrew Natsios, U.S. Special Envoy to Sudan, addressing Georgetown students last week

I’m not sure what “facts” Mr. Natsios is looking at, but this is just not the case. The reality is that the situation in the Sudan is as dire as ever, with the region on the brink of collapse. Government-sponsored Janjaweed militias are using rape, starvation, and mass murder to systematically kill more than 400,000 innocent people and displace 2.5 million more. U.N. Emergency Relief Coordinator Margareta Wahltstrom has said that the situation only continues to worsen and frequent attacks on international workers make it nearly impossible to provide relief and aid to the victims. Last month, 14 U.N. aid agencies working to provide relief in Darfur warned that their operations would collapse if security did not improve.

Enough talk, Mr. Natsios, and a little more action. Even if the Bush Administration cares little about the plight of the Sudanese, there is action even we can take to end the government-sponsored genocide in Darfur. 62% of Americans think Darfur should be a priority, and there is one major way average Americans can take the lead President Bush has not: Write your elected officials and encourage them to divest from Sudan and its supporters. Divestment campaigns helped lead to the collapse of apartheid in South Africa in the 1990s, and is one of the best ways organizations and individuals can produce real change.

Six states and over 30 universities (including Georgetown) have sold investments relating to Sudan. Sudan relies heavily on foreign investment to fund the genocide (as much as 80% of the oil revenue in the country goes to fund the military), and the Sudanese government has shown a historic responsiveness to economic pressure.

For more information, visit SudanDivestment.org.

It is already too late for too many in Darfur. Let’s put an end to this genocide before millions more must suffer.

read more...

One of the most important developments in the history of political campaigning happened late last week, and (almost) nobody noticed.

“What?” you ask. “Of course everyone noticed! Are you kidding? The first woman and the first African-American with serious shots at winning a major party nomination announced last week! You’d have to be living under a rock not to know that, just shut up about Barack and Hillary and glass ceilings already, and let me go back to [insert personal activity of choice here: flossing my teeth, procrastinating at Midnight Mug, liberating silverware from Leo’s, etc.] in peace!”

While Senators Obama and Clinton have indeed walked into the history books with their groundbreaking campaigns, that’s not what I’m talking about.

What I’m talking about is Hillary Clinton’s decision to forgo federal matching funding in both the nominating and general election campaigns. While many candidates have opted out of public financing for primary campaigns before, Sen. Clinton is the first to declare that she is capable of raising more than the $150 million that would be provided to her under the federal program for the 2008 primary and general campaign elections. Sen. Clinton’s decision to ask donors for a maximum donation of $4200 at this point in her campaign—rather than the $2100 maximum donation she would receive were she to accept federal matching funds in the general election—will set off a chain reaction among her opponents, making prospects difficult for candidates who aren’t capable of raising such huge sums on their own.

The federal matching funds program, introduced in 1976, works as follows:
-Any primary candidate who raises at least $100,000 in personal donations receives federal money to match the first $250 of each donation. For 2008, candidates could received matching grants of as much as $25 million for the primary season and about $15 million for a nomination convention.
-In the 2008 cycle, general election candidates could received up $83 million.

However, with Sen. Clinton’s decision to decline federal matching funds (with opponents expected to follow suit, although opponents including Sen. Obama declined to comment on any similar decision), analysts are expecting the two candidates who make it to the general election to raise more $500 million each—meaning a presidential campaign that will end up costing more than a billion dollars come November 2008.

Already, the New York Times is reporting that John McCain has begun to solicit private donations for both the primary and general elections, with the option of returning them. Sen. McCain, who has long been a proponent of campaign finance reform, removed his name as a co-sponsor of a bill to expand the presidential public financing program.

If the two frontrunners for their parties’ nominations—Clinton and McCain—do indeed make it Election Day 2008, we can say good-bye to the days of public financing. Candidates these days spend as much time fundraising as they do campaigning. This is positively absurd—do you think of any other position where you spend more to get the job than you make once you have it? Though the Supreme Court struck down spending caps on campaigns as an unconstitutional abridgment of your right to free speech, it is time to consider new alternatives for a broken system. What about lowering the donation threshold from, say, $2100, to $500? This would greatly increase the ability of your average Joe to participate as fully in the political process as his wealthier fellow citizens, and for all the ado that was made about Howard Dean’s ability to fundraise using small donations through the internet, the reality is that the majority of campaign funding still comes from influential donors who have as many votes as the rest of us do—one—but exercise outsize influence on democratic process. While I am by no means a proponent of full federal financing for all campaigns (the taxpayers shouldn’t have to foot the bill for vanity campaigns of candidates like the Rev. Al Sharpton), there must be a solution here. Our Founding Fathers—who considered it embarrassing to personally campaign for the presidency, let alone raise money for advertising—would be aghast at the feeding trough our presidential electoral system has become. Something must be done before this system gets even more out of hand—I want my vote to count just as much as anyone else’s, don’t you?

read more...

As the adrenaline from the midterm elections starts to die down and Democrats settle into the business of actually governing in Washington, the 2008 election season has already begun to ramp up.

Quick Political Updates:
-Sen. Chuck Schumer (NY), serving a second term as chair of the DSCC, has said that he has firm commitments from all but one of 12 Senate Democrats up for reelection in 2008 to run. Tom Harkin of Iowa remains the lone holdout, but in a caucus-going year, it seems likely that Harkin is just looking for a little good old fashioned butt-kissing before making the inevitable announcement that he will run again. If Harkin unexpectedly decides to opt out of the race, Iowa’s Senate seat will become competitive in 2008.

-Rep. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland was chosen by Speaker Pelosi to head up the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in the 2008 cycle. Of the announcement, Roll Call reported that “While Van Hollen was seen as a favorite in the race to replace outgoing Chairman Rahm Emanuel (Ill.), who said he would not serve another term, the Maryland lawmaker is not viewed as a Pelosi loyalist.” Van Hollen, who co-chaired the DCCC’s “Red to Blue” program in the ’06 cycle, was elected to his seat in the affluent Washington suburbs by a very tight margin in 2002 following a hard-fought primary, defeating moderate Republican incumbent Connie Morella by 4%. Van Hollen was one of only 2 Democrats to unseat incumbent House Republicans in that cycle (he also benefited from 2000 redistricting that moved part of heavily African-American Prince George’s County into Maryland’s 8th District). An affable wonk known affectionately to members of his district simply as “Chris,” Van Hollen—who spoke to GUCD members at October’s general meeting—was chosen for the position over Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, an Emmanuel protégé who shares the Chicago native’s pit-bull attitude. Rahmbo said of the Van Hollen pick, “There is no one better prepared to take the reins of the DCCC than Congressman Van Hollen. Both his personal electoral experience and his leadership of the Red to Blue and recruitment efforts have shown that he is a political strategist and thinker of the first order.” (You can see his full statement here.)

-DNC Chair Howard Dean decided this week that the 2008 DNC presidential nominating convention will be held in Denver, Colorado. In choosing Denver over New York City, Chairman Dean made a strong political statement about the future of the Democratic Party, saying on Thursday that, “I have long believed that the essence of a Democratic victory goes through the West. If we are going to have a national party, we are going to have to have Westerners vote Democratic again on a reliable basis.” Though the Mountain West has been reliably Republican in recent presidential elections, the 2006 midterms showed a region that is trending increasingly blue. In 2004, Colorado had a Republican governor, a Republican legislature, and a 5-to-2 advantage in the state’s congressional delegation. Today, both houses of the state legislature as well as the governorship are in Democratic hands, and a majority (4 out of 7) of its congressional seats are held by Democrats. In 2004, Democrat Ken Salazar won a Colorado Senate seat that was previously held by a Republican. In nearby Montana, libertarian Democrat Jon Tester defeated GOP Sen. Conrad Burns in November, a victory that would have been unfathomable just a few years ago in the solidly red state. Today, the picture in the West is far different for Democrats, and Dean made an excellent political calculation in his long-delayed decision about where to hold the 2008 convention. Though the Denver bid had problems from the start—the city’s original bids were riddled with logistical problems, and labor unions threatened to rebel unless Denver began to unionize its hotels—any future electoral success for the Democrats will depend on recognizing the strong gains Democrats have made in the West. (A sidebar: Some in the party—such as UMBC political scientist Thomas Schaller in his influential new book “Whistling Past Dixie”—have even argued that Democrats should concede the “solid South” to the GOP and concentrate instead on winning votes in the Midwest and Western frontier. This is a dangerously extreme view that overlooks recent Democratic successes in the South. Besides the fact that the last two Democratic presidents have come from the South, Southern states were a sizable part of Democratic victories in 2006, providing prominent freshman Democrats like North Carolina’s Heath Shuler, and the 50 state strategy relies on the premise that Democrats will not concede a single state to the Republicans.)

-But we all know that all of this is just a side show to the real race in 2008: the race for the White House. The 2008 election will be the first time since 1952 that no sitting president or vice president will be running for the White House, representing a primary field that is wide-open in both parties. Though the Iowa caucus is still 356 days away, already a sizable field of contenders is shaping up. A quick glance at who’s in—and out—will be posted later today.

read more...

Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) suffered a “possible stroke” today and is currently in GWU Hospital undergoing treatment. His prognosis is unknown. Were Sen. Johnson to retire or otherwise vacate his seat, control of the Senate would likely swing back to the Republicans as either South Dakota’s Republican legislature or Republican governor would appoint a replacement, returning the Senate to a 50-50 split, with Vice President Cheney casting the deciding vote.

For now, however, let’s refrain from partisanship. Please keep Sen. Johnson and his family in your thoughts and prayers this evening.

read more...

You rarely see the name “Hillary Clinton” without the phrase “frontrunner for the 2008 Democratic nomination” surgically attached to it, and for good reason.

Or so it would seem, anyway.

Sen. Clinton certainly makes a good case for a possible presidential run. Supporters (and not a few detractors) point to two main talking points as to why the senator is the prohibitive favorite to win the nom: 1) Name recognition (undeniable) and 2) An insurmountable fundraising advantage (ditto). As if to prove it, Sen. Clinton spent a record $36 million to ensure a “blowout” reelection victory over her Republican opponent in New York. The money helped Sen. Clinton win by over 30 points—and also made the junior senator from New York the biggest campaign spender this cycle. (The #2 spender? Sen. Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, who spent $24 mil to get his butt handed to him by Bob Casey.)

I want to direct you to a recent New York Times article on the subject. Since Sen. Clinton took office in 2001, she has spent at least 36 million smackaroos on her reelection, which she won with 67%. In contrast, her colleague Chuck Schumer spent less than half that—about $15.5 million—to get reelected in 2004, and won with 71% of the vote, four points more than Hillary did this year. Sen. Clinton also won a smaller percentage of the vote in New York this year than did Gov.-elect Eliot Spitzer, who won 69% in his successful campaign.

Sen. Clinton’s reckless spending has left more than a few Dems a little PO’d. Clinton spent heavily in an effort to win in a blowout that would showcase her nationwide as a candidate who can appeal do independents and Republicans as well as true blue Dems, setting her up for a White House run. But the strategy may have backfired on the good senator.

Netroots bloggers are criticizing Sen. Clinton of “blowing” an appalling $36 million to win what was always a shoo-in campaign, and many longtime supporters and fundraisers are criticizing campaign aides for a “lack of discipline” in spending.

All of this broohaha blows huge holes through the pro-Hillary arguments longtime advisors like James Carville and Mark Penn have been making in private and in the press for the past year and a half. One—that Hillary isn’t as divisive as she is stereotyped, and could win a large segment of moderates and independents—is immediately cast into doubt by the huge amount of money she spent in New York this cycle to create her landslide victory. It was smart strategy; Among other things, her 2006 reelection campaign created a convenient excuse to keep Hillary in New York and out of early primary and caucus states like Iowa and New Hampshire, continuing the aura of mystery that has surrounded Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 intentions for some time. (Don’t worry about her primary prospects too much, though—Bill was out there instead, doing more than a big of glad-handing in Cedar Rapids and Manchester—a worthy surrogate to be sure.) But the result—spending an absurd amount of money that could have been spent in battleground states like Tennessee—may come ‘round later to kick good ol’ Hil in the butt, should she ultimately decide to run.

But the other consequence of Sen. Clinton’s heavy-handed spending habits may be more problematic in the short term. One of Sen. Clinton’s strongest advantages among the field of possible Democratic contenders is her unsurpassed ability to fundraise and tap donor databases worth millions more than any other candidate. But Hil’s spending—which included $27,000 for valet parking and $13,000 worth of flowers—left her with a much-depleted war chest. As of mid-October (the last time her campaign filed a disclosure with the FEC), she had about $14 million CoH, far less than the $20-30 million her advisers predicted she’d have post-election. This puts the esteemed senator in the same ballpark as fellow '08 hopefuls John Kerry ($13.8 million as of 9/30) and Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana ($10.6 million).

Whether her 2006 spending will become an issue in the '08 primaries is certainly a big question (it's easy to forget that the Iowa caucuses are actually more than a year away), but it certainly warrants asking the question we've all been thinking anyway: How electable is Hillary Clinton?

read more...

Okay, in the back-to-school spirit of things, I’m going to give y’all a little quiz. (Don’t worry, it won’t be graded. This one’s just for fun.)

Who said the following?

“[The] President . . . is once again releasing American military might on a foreign country with an ill-defined objective and no exit strategy. He has yet to tell the Congress how much this operation will cost. And he has not informed our nation’s armed forces about how long they will be away from home. These strikes do not make for a sound foreign policy.”

Rep. Murtha, perhaps? Maybe Carl Levin?

How about this one?

“I cannot support a failed foreign policy. History teaches us that it is often easier to make war than peace. This administration is just learning that lesson right now. The President began this mission with very vague objectives and lots of unanswered questions. A month later, these questions are still unanswered. There are no clarified rules of engagement. There is no timetable. There is no legitimate definition of victory. There is no contingency plan for mission creep. There is no clear funding program. There is no agenda to bolster our over-extended military. There is no explanation defining what vital national interests are at stake. There was no strategic plan for war when the President started this thing, and there still is no plan today.”

Any thoughts on that one, kiddies? It seems to me to be a rather eloquent attack on a trigger-happy president with a misguided and ill-conceived war on his hands. Pretty much sums up every problem with President Bush’s war in Iraq.

Okay, almost done, I swear. Last question, worth a hundred and ten percent of your grade on this quiz. Who said:

“I think it's also important for the president to lay out a timetable as to how long [U.S. troops] will be involved and when they will be withdrawn.”

The answers are a) Sen. Rick Santorum (R-PA), ex-Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX), and… then-Gov. George W. Bush (R-TX), to the Seattle Post-Intelligencer on June 5, 1999.

The war they were talking about?

Bosnia, a peacekeeping operation President Clinton entered into with NATO and UN support.

Another little gem for you—Bush, to the Houston Chronicle on April 9, 1999, describing his foreign policy views: “Victory means exit strategy, and it's important for the president to explain to us what the exit strategy is.”

It seems we’ve got a little case of amnesia on our hands…

Let's contast that with the Bush of last week, who said "Still, there are some in our country who insist that the best option in Iraq is to pull out, regardless of the situation on the ground. Many of these folks are sincere and they're patriotic, but they could be -- they could not be more wrong... If America were to pull out before Iraq can defend itself, the consequences would be absolutely predictable -- and absolutely disastrous. We would be handing Iraq over to our worst enemies... Victory still depends on the courage and the patience and the resolve of the American people."

Now y’all already know how I feel about the war in Iraq, so I won’t repeat myself. Instead, I’ll let Tom DeLay do it for me:

“Bombing a sovereign nation for ill-defined reasons with vague objectives undermines the American stature in the world. The international respect and trust for America has diminished every time we casually let the bombs fly. We must stop giving the appearance that our foreign policy is formulated by the Unabomber.”

Setting a deadline for a conflict with no clear end in sight isn’t surrender. It’s just sanity.

read more...

President Bush, in a “well, duh” moment yesterday, traveled to St. Mary’s county in southern Maryland to deliver a speech calling on Americans to decrease their dependence on foreign oil. In his 11-minute remarks, Bush said that our reliance on foreign oil “jeopardizes our capacity to grow. I mean, the problem is, we get oil from some parts of the world, and they simply don’t like us. And so the more dependent we are on that type of energy, the less likely it will be that we are able to compete.” (In the spirit of policy debate, I’m going to exercise some strong restraint and refrain from criticizing President Bush’s rather loose grip on the English language, though seriously, what the hell kind of statement is “we get oil from some parts of the world”? Ya think, Mr. President?)

It’s nice of President Bush to finally catch up to what Democrats have been saying for years. Our dependence on an overwhelmingly unstable and undemocratic area of the world to keep our energy-based economy going is nothing short of insanity.

Bush called on American innovation in decreasing our reliance on foreign oil, and called for exploration of alternative energy sources, including ethanol. Perhaps President Bush has finally recognized that despite our better interests, America is now more dependent on foreign oil than we were before 9/11.

Bush and Republican leaders in the Senate should start by putting their full force behind the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act, a bipartisan bill introduced in the Senate by four Democrats and five Republicans. Among other things, the Vehicle and Fuel Choices for American Security Act aims to reduce our dependence on oil by 7 million barrels a day in 20 years. The legislation provides funding for the development and mass marketing of hybrid technologies, including ethanol, and provides tax credits and incentives for businesses like gas stations and car manufacturers to offer hybrid fuel technologies to their customers. Ethanol is a fuel source that can be grown right here at home—from things as common as corn, paper pulp, and agricultural waste. All of this has the side benefit of creating American jobs and stimulating our economy.

America’s dependence on foreign oil is shameful. Thanks to President Bush for—belatedly, but better than never—coming to the party. Democrats have been standing around the punchbowl for years.

(Another interesting sidenote about what didn’t happen at the event: Notably absent from the president’s appearance in the strongly red county of St. Mary’s were Maryland Gov. Bob Ehrlich and Lt. Gov./GOP Senate candidate Michael Steele. Questioned on the notable absence of the state’s two most senior Republicans, White House adviser Karl Rove said that Ehrlich and Steele could not be at the side of the Commander-in-Chief because “they had existing events of their own.” What kind important event could entice them to ignore a man who has raised them millions, you might ask? They were busy marching in a Labor Day parade in Gaithersburg. Now, I’m from Maryland, and I do love me a good parade, but I’m from one town over, and trust me, the Gaithersburg Labor Day Parade isn’t exactly the must-see political event of the season. The statement released by Steele spokeswoman Melissa Sellers was more telling: “The lieutenant governor is honored to have the support of the president, those in his own party and Democrats and independents alike.” Steele, you might remember, turned out to be the anonymous Senate candidate who, in a Washington Post interview this summer, declared the letter “R” to be a “Scarlet Letter” this election season.)

read more...

As soon as I got into the office this morning, I logged onto the Dems blog to see that Ben beat me to the punch. I can’t say much beyond Ben’s (very true) analysis, so I’ll keep it short.

Just a friendly reminder not to overanalyze the Amazing Race. A lot of pundits and bloggers have been using the Lieberman-Lamont primary showdown as bellwhether of events to come, so it seems prudent to remember that Connecticut is an overwhelmingly blue state—Joementum or not—and is in no way indicative of the nation as a whole. I would argue that it isn’t even representative of the national party, since moderate elements like the DLC aren’t going away any time soon, no matter what Markos Moulitsas might hope.

In the end, Nutmeg State politics are certainly interesting. But my advice? Don’t get caught up in the overblown netroots hype and draw conclusions from this (fairly unique) incident.

read more...

Just quick reminder: A lot of us later states have primaries coming up in August and September. Don't forget to register if you want to be able to vote in the Democratic primary! It's easy to forget, what with the laziness of summer and nice hot days by the pool beckoning, but some states require you to register at least 30 days before the election, so don't get too caught up in the attractions of the weather and miss your state's deadlines. For a comprehensive list of links and deadlines for all 50 states, go here.

For those of you who are already registered, you're not of the hook-- make sure your family, friends, and neighbors have their ballots, too! You should also be careful to check for ID requirements, rules and deadlines for requesting an absentee ballot (if you'll be at school for the election), and how to take advantage of early voting (if your state has it).

Remember, it's quick, it's simple, and it's the easiest way to get involved. It's your government, people.

read more...

News has admittedly been slow in Washington this month, but politicos and wonks take heart: the Senate seems likely to approve federal funding for stem cell legislation sometime in the next few days (the House passed stem cell funding last year), setting up a showdown between Congress and President Bush, who has promised to veto any legislation that increases funding for embryonic stem cell research. Cue the Clint Eastwood soundtrack, and don’t forget to take cover in the nearest saloon, folks! You don’t want to get caught in the midst of this rodeo face-off.

The Senate is considering H.R. 810, the Stem Cell Research Enhancement Act, which passed the House 238-194 (including 50 Republicans). The bill has bipartisan support and enough votes (at least 60) to guarantee its passage. Republican backers include Sen. Arlen Specter (the least crazy person in Pennsylvania’s senatorial delegation, though I think we can all agree that’s not saying much), who yesterday compared the president’s position against stem cell research to those who opposed Columbus, imprisoned Galileo, and rejected anesthesia, electricity, vaccines, and rail travel, saying that such views “in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous,” and challenged Bush to sign the legislation. Even Majority Leader (and White House-wannabe) Bill Frist, who had previously been opposed to increased federal funding for stem cell research, seems to have seen the light (or more likely, polling that shows Americans favor stem cell research 2-1), and called for the Senate to approve the bill, saying that “the current policy unduly restricts the number of cell lines.”

Sen. Frist is absolutely right. (Wait, time out. Everyone, look out your window. Anybody see any flying pigs? Really? No? Okay, well, then, I suppose even Dr. Frist is bound to take the correct position on something eventually, even if only by accident.)

Current administration policy limits federal funding to research on 64 existing stem cell lines worldwide “where the life and death decision has already been made.” It is unclear whether at least a third of these designated lines are scientifically viable for research. Declaring 64 lines, many of which are contaminated and unusable, as sufficient for research that has the potential to save thousands of lives and ease the suffering of millions is a preposterous proposal.

Opening increased funding for stem cell research introduces the prospect of curing or reducing the symptoms of countless diseases afflicting millions of Americans nationwide, including cancerous tumors, spinal cord injuries, organ defects, heart disease, Alzheimer’s, diabetes, and a whole host of other ailments, even baldness. Even Nancy Reagan, the veritable Queen Mother of GOP conservatives, supports the measure. One has to wonder why the Republicans are even wasting their time putting up a fight at all. (All together, class: Can you say "rallying the base in an election year"?)

Although I do have to say that the ridiculous debate over stem cells certainly has its upsides, specifically the hilarious stream of quotable moments it is currently producing on the Senate floor. (Watching C-SPAN online is an excellent way to pass hours if it’s a slow day at the office, you should try it.) Check out this gem, courtesy of Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Crazyville), who seems to be unaware that extra embryos conceived and later frozen as part of IVF treatments for infertile couples are likely to be discarded with or without stem cell research, invalidating his point that stem cell research destroys human life.

Sen. Frist has promised a floor vote soon, and since the bill seems destined to pass, the only question is whether or not supporters will be able to muster the 67 votes necessary to override a veto that seems imminent. Keep your eyes posted.

Update 7/19: The Senate passed the bill as expected yesterday, 63-37. President Bush just signed his first-ever veto. Supporters of the bill do not appear to have enough votes (2/3 of each house) to override.

read more...

Even though we’re more than two years out from the next presidential election, it’s no secret that campaigning is already well under way, with, by my count, around a dozen or so Democrats (give or take a few) contemplating White House runs. Several PACs (the embryonic stage of a presidential campaign) have already started to set up shop in key primary states, establishing field offices, hiring staff, and wooing influential local Dems in these crucial states.

Despite all the water cooler speculations—Will Iowa Gov. Vilsack, polling at an anemic 4th place in his home state, decide not to run? Will Obama decide to throw his hat into the ring? Does anybody besides Chris Dodd actually believe that Chris Dodd is going to be the 2008 Democratic presidential nominee?—you may have missed an oft-overlooked, but no less important, aspect of the rapidly shaping 2008 race: the schedule of the primaries themselves.

Iowans and New Hampshirites (yes, that’s what they’re called—I looked it up) zealously guard their first-in-the-nation statuses with the paranoia of a Jewish grandmother on the streets of Harlem. And why wouldn’t they? Their outsize influence on the eventual nomination results cause otherwise-ordinary candidates to go crazy with Hawkeye/Granite state lovin’. Presidential hopefuls can’t seem to say enough good things about the discerning, informed, patriotic, dedicated (etc., etc… you get the gist) caucus- and primary- goers of IA and NH. They spend an disproportionate amount of time wooing “VIPs” the rest of us have never heard of, with their lips surgically attached the butts of precinct coordinators and county chairmen across the state. I kind of get the feeling that this every-four-years lovefest is the highlight of their otherwise boring lives.

This sense of entitlement that NH and IA primary voters have to being de facto kingmakers in picking the party’s nominee is totally uncalled for. The DNC is seriously considering moving the primary schedule around from ’04 (which produced a nominee in record time—barely three weeks—which isn’t even enough time for voters to get comfortable with the candidates, particularly in an uninterested media environment that reduces a substantive opportunity to debate the real issues in America to a mere horserace).

The DNC’s Rules and Bylaws Committee, which has jurisdiction over such issues, is currently considering several proposals. One option the Committee is considering is a proposal to add a caucus after Iowa but before New Hampshire, a compromise proposal that would enable New Hampshire to keep their coveted “first primary” status while introducing a bit of geographic diversity into the primary process. Ten states (Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, South Carolina, West Virginia, Michigan) and the District have applied to be early-selection states. Rumor has it that the committee has all but decided on Nevada, but the committee won’t make an official recommendation until later this month, and the full DNC won’t vote on caucus/primary schedule until August.

New Hampshire Dems are throwing the political equivalent of a hissy fit at this prospect, with Gov. Lynch releasing a statement that said, in part, “Unfortunately, a small group of party insiders seems more intent on undermining a presidential nominating tradition that has worked well for 50 years - a tradition which ensures that the voices of ordinary citizens are heard. Even more unfortunate is that DNC Chairman Howard Dean - who never would have had the opportunity to be considered a serious presidential contender without the New Hampshire primary - is supporting their efforts.” Oh, snap!

He went on, declaring, “This fight isn't over. In the end, I am confident that New Hampshire and its first-in-the-nation tradition will prevail. The DNC did not give New Hampshire its primary, and it will not take it away.” Lynch and Dem legislators have threatened to move the primary even earlier if things don’t go their way.

This leaves ’08-wannabes in a bit of a bind—those early primaries and caucuses are crucial to a primary victory. Most candidates seem to be taking the traditional route—Evan Bayh, Mark Warner, and John Edwards will all be in Iowa this week—but some are hedging their bets. Tom Daschle, another presidential contender, is scheduling time to visit Michigan, another possible early caucus state, but if you think Daschle, a man who couldn’t even win reelection in his own state, is going to be the nominee in 2008, then I’ve got a bridge in California I’d like to sell you…

But I digress. What I really want to bring your attention to is NH’s supposed “right” to their first-in-the-nation primary, a claim I believe to be wholly without merit.

The Democratic Party is supposed to represent America. And a state with such a crucial role in determining who will be the party’s candidate for president should reflect the demographics of the country as a whole, right? Well, then why does our nation—12.3% black—hold its first presidential primary in a state where blacks make up only 0.8% of the state’s population? (Iowa’s not much better—it’s 92.6% white.) This is completely absurd, and DNC members are correct in their desire to add a Southern or Western state with larger black and Hispanic presences to the early caucus calendar.

New Hampshire voters argue that all of this is irrelevant; they say that they more than make up for their relative lack of diversity with a discerning sense of civic responsibility and political acumen that forces candidates to do “retail politics” and deal with voters one-on-one. While these are both true—rare is the New Hampshire voter who hasn’t met the man he’s voting for in person at least once—polling from 2004 shows that NH’s claims to “vetting” candidates are dubious, at best.

Kos did a story on this last week, and I’m borrowing his numbers here. Let’s take a look at polling from 2004:

Research 2000 for the Concord Monitor:
12/17-18, 2003
Dean 34
Clark 14
Kerry 13
Gephardt 7
Lieberman 7
Edwards 4

The Iowa caucuses were on January 19, 2004. The poll immediately following the caucuses, also by Research 2000, taken January 20-22, 2004:
Kerry 29 (up 16 points)
Dean 21 (down 13)
Clark 17 (+3)
Edwards 9 (+5)
Lieberman 5 (-2)

That’s some nice vetting there, New Hampshire. Kos writes, “In 2004, Iowa picked out nominee, and New Hampshire did nothing more than rubberstamp Iowa’s decision. No amount of “retail politics” on the ground in New Hampshire could overcome what Granite State voters saw in the Iowa results and Dean’s ‘scream’.”

I rarely agree with Markos Moulitsas on anything, but he’s nailed it on the head here. NH’s sense of entitlement is wholly without merit. While there are a lot of things about the primary schedule that I would like to see the DNC change—I think that the front-loaded primary schedule that generates a nominee in only a few weeks is a huge mistake, for instance—I think that NH’s status as first-in-the-nation, while a great tradition, is an idea that is past its prime. Unfortunately, nothing will change as long as candidates are too scared of alienating influential Granite State voters to stand up for what we already know—that New Hampshire’s primary is a privilege, not a right, and that it’s time to consider changing the primary schedule to reflect the reality of America.

read more...

Okay, so this isn't really a legitimate posting about a pressing political issue... but it's funny, so I'm going to justify this post using the "it was just too good to ignore" grounds.

Apparently, The Hill reports, because Joe Biden wasn't already kind of freaky enough, he for some reason felt the need to declare to a roomful of supporters (who were presumably as disturbed by this thought as me) that he could live without the presidency. "I'd rather be at home making love to my wife while my children are asleep."

Sen. Biden's spokesman, following up on the inquiries of confused reporters and perturbed political wonks everywhere, clarified that Biden was just trying to explain that the presidency was "not an egotistical pursuit for him" and that he is "frankly totally in love with his wife."

My view: thanks for the explanation, dude, but come back to me when you can go back in time and keep the image of Biden in flagrante delecto out of my head.

I know what you're all thinking-- "Gee, Rach, thanks. Now I have to think about this all day, too." To that I say: If I have to suffer, I'm taking all of you down with me.

read more...

It seems there are a whole lot of people peeved at Chuck Schumer these days. As chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, he broke with tradition to endorse candidates in the primary, alienating some prominent DNC fundraisers. I’m not sure I agree with that policy, I understand the motivation—Sen. Schumer, like all of us, wants to see a Democratic Senate next year and wants to make sure that nominations go to candidates most likely to win in the general.

But he’s gone a step too far this time. At a Wednesday press briefing, Schumer was asked if he would support Joe Lieberman’s (D-Conn) reelection bid if he ran as an independent, and Schumer pointedly refused rule out supporting the conservative senator in a general election against Ned Lamont and Alan Schlesinger.

I don’t care for Joe Lieberman; I disagree with most of his political views, and in my mind, he’s basically Bush Lite. I don’t see him as much of a Democrat.

But he is an incumbent, and if I were voting in the Connecticut primary, I’d cast my ballot for Lieberman, for the sole reason that I think he’s the candidate most likely to ensure that his Senate seat remains Democratic.

Polling has shown Lamont gaining on Lieberman in the primary, now down only 15%, 55-40, in numbers from last week. My money is on Lieberman (literally—we’ve got a little pool going at the All America office), but Lamont’s gains have been impressive considering Lieberman’s name recognition. Adam informs me that Connecticut law would require Lieberman to declare his intention to run as an independent before the primary if he wants to appear on the ballot, meaning that if Lieberman and his pollsters suspect he has a chance at losing to Lamont, then it would behoove him to run as an independent. Polling on the race is interesting:

If Lieberman runs as the Democratic nominee against Republican challenger Alan Schlesinger, Lieberman takes the race 68-14.
In a two-way race with Lamont winning the Dem primary, he defeats Schlesinger 37-20, but with 34 percent still undecided (meaning the seat is far from a lock, despite the Connecticut's overwhelming blueness).
But in a three way race between Lamont, Schlesinger, and Lieberman running as an independent, Lieberman wins with 56% against both candidates.

Lieberman’s camp says that he has yet to make a decision, but he is reportedly said to be seriously considering a run for reelection as an independent.

But back to Schumer. Now, I understand Schumer’s desire to support a colleague, especially such a prominent one. But the man is chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. Anyone in such a prominent position of power has an obligation to endorse the party’s nominee, no matter who it is. While Schumer’s endorsement of Lieberman would hinge on a guarantee to caucus with the Dems and vote for Harry Reid for majority leader, such an endorsement is still unacceptable. If Lamont gets the support of the majority of Connecticut’s Democrats, then he deserves the support of the party as well.

It’s this kind of action that causes disenchantment with the national party. The cogs and machinery of the party cannot operate so separately from the people they claim to represent. I know Sen. Schumer wants to win; so do I. We’ve just made a different calculation about what victory means—the ends don’t always justify the means. Even if Lamont seems likely to lose, if he is the choice of the people, then the DNC and its leadership are bound to support him. That's what democracy is all about, even intraparty elections.

Democrats should call on Schumer to support the party’s nominee, whoever that may be.

read more...

Here's an election season joke for you- Q: How many Democrats does it take to screw in a lightbulb? A: It's irrelevant, they don't know they're in the dark! [pause for laughter]

Okay, okay, I'm no comedian, so I'll stick to blogging. But in all seriousness, I think there's some truth to the Democrats-are-out-of-touch-with-American-voters argument. A lot of people agree on this premise, but the reasoning behind it is hotly contested. I'm sure y'all have had it up to here with me and Adam and the centrist-liberal schism within the Democratic Party. Yet the rest of you seem to be woefully silent on the issue.

I'd like to bring to your attention an interesting piece by Michael Grunwald from yesterday's Washington Post, entitled "How to Reconnect with Voters and Realize Your Dreams of Victory: A Step-by-Step Guide for Democrats."

Yet despite the strength of its title, Grunwald's article fails to live up to its promise. Instead of offering a comprehensive plan to a gaining a Democratic majority, Grunwald's op-ed is really more a recounting of a debate familiar to most of us—the conflict between those within the party who want it to take a hard left towards views reminiscent of Eugene McCarthy, George McGovern, and Karl Marx, and those centrists who want to maintain the middle-of-the-road path that brought the Democrats their only White House victories in the last quarter of a century. (Can you tell whose side I’m on?)

On one side of the party are the liberal activists and bloggers who very nearly propelled Howard Dean to the nomination in 2004 and who were largely responsibly for handing him the chairmanship of the DNC last year, much to the consternation of inside-the-Beltway centrists within the party. This side maintains that Democrats must learn to grow a little backbone, standing up for progressive policies and running liberal Democratic candidates who are anti-war, pro-choice, pro-gun control, and anti-Bush. This half of the party, Grunwald argues, wants Democrats “to be less apologetic, less wishy-washy, more willing to speak truth to power, more . . . liberal.” Until they define themselves as a clear Republican alternative, the left flank argues, the Democrats are destined to remain the minority party.

On the other side are the moderates of the party, who argue that in order to win elections, the Democrats must appeal to the middle-class heartland voters concerned more about national security and taxes than social issues like gay marriage and school prayer. These Democrats want the party to run candidates who are “less elitist, less negative, more respectful of red-state values, more . . . moderate.” These centrists want a party that appeals to the middle class values voters in a country that is essentially right-of-center. Otherwise, the argument goes, Democrats will be doomed to remain the hoity-toity party of the overeducated “we know what’s best for you” urban elite.

Grunwald does not offer an opinion on which of these sides is most likely to result in Democratic gains in November, reflecting a party that is still torn between the two positions. The liberals can point to some impressive victories so far this campaign season—in Montana, grassroots candidate Jon Tester won by a huge margin the right to face off against incumbent Sen. Conrad Burns for a highly poachable seat against establishment pick John Morrison, who outspent Tester by nearly a 2-to-1 margin in the primary.

Another upcoming race to watch will the Virginia Senate primary. Harris Miller, a longtime Democratic activist, and Jim Webb, a recent convert to the party who endorsed Bush and Republican Sen. George Allen in 2000, will compete for the right to oppose Sen. Allen in the general election. The polls point to a primary that is too close to call. This race offers a slight variant on the liberal-centrist model, however—Miller, the candidate with the liberal bona fides and strong grassroots support, is not a Beltway outsider but a Washington lobbyist, and Webb, the choice of many Democratic insiders, is a newcomer to the party, a former Reagan administration official and veteran who wears his son’s combat boots as a symbol of what the administration did wrong in going to war with Iraq. Though Miller offers clearly defined liberal positions on the issues and a long history as a Democrat, Webb has garnered the endorsements of key figures within the party, including 2004 nominee John Kerry and Minority Leader Harry Reid, who have both expressed opinions that Webb offers the best chance for victory against Sen. Allen.

No matter who wins on Tuesday, look for both sides of the intraparty debate to spin the election results like a cheap plastic dreidel on Hanukkah.

read more...

Okay. Adam brought his 20th century political hero into the mix, so I’m going to introduce mine. Harry Truman once said, “It’s plain hokum. If you can’t convince them, confuse them. It’s an old political trick. But this time it won’t work.”

Nice try, Adam.

In his last post (a response to my response to his original post—nice to see they’re working us interns real hard over here at All America PAC), Adam basically made it seem as though us libertarian types hate helping people. It was an admirable effort at confusing the issue, to be sure, but I’m not going to let that one slide, so I’m going to respond briefly before, y’know, actually doing my real job.

I think that any time you give a government a task that could be completed by someone or something else, you need to justify it. Thus far, big government liberals have utterly failed to convince me as to why the federal government should be performing tasks like providing drug counseling or deciding one single nationwide criteria for what constitutes a “successful education.” I believe that these are tasks that are performed much more effectively on a local level, and so far, liberals, Adam included, have yet to make an effective argument as to why these are tasks that can only be performed by the federal government.

I think that helping those that are less fortunate is important. In fact, I believe that each and every person on this planet has an obligation to help their fellow human beings.

I just don’t think the government should be telling them how to do that.

I think that most people have an innate sense of right and wrong. And I think that given the opportunity, the vast majority of Americans will rise to the opportunity to help those in need.

But it is quite simply not a government’s job to do that. That is not what a government is. A government doesn’t exist to enforce moral behavior; it exists solely to keep order and provide services that can only be achieved through collective action, like trash collection.

Our founding fathers never intended for government to become the giant machine that it is today. That is why they initially wrote a ban on income taxes into the Constitution. This is a rule that is of course long gone, but the issue still stands. Hobbes argued that government was an issue not of moral good, but of self-interest—that is, citizens cede certain rights to the governments in exchange for physical protection. Nowhere in that argument does helping the less fortunate come into play. It is simply not the domain of government. The social contract between a citizen and his government is not one of morality, it is one of pragmatism. Government does not exist to serve as an equalizer; not all people are necessarily equally deserving of reward in their lives. It’s why communism failed; governments have no place controlling the distribution of income amongst their citizens. In my view, if you earn your money, you should get to keep as much of it as humanly possible, taxing only what is necessary to keep anarchy at bay. Taxes should only be imposed as an absolute last resort, and laws passed only when a problem of order, security, or equality cannot be solved any other way.

read more...

I would like to build off my reply to Adam’s post about the principles of liberalism by saying the one thing I never thought I’d say: take a look at Tom DeLay’s retirement speech from the House floor yesterday.

For those of you who can’t bear the thought of any more DeLay than is absolutely necessary, I’ll excerpt it here.

“Liberalism, after all, whatever you may think of its merits, is a political philosophy and a proud one with a great tradition in this country, with a voracious appetite for growth.

In any place or any time on any issue, what does liberalism ever seek, Mr. Speaker? More—more government, more taxation, more control over people's lives and decisions and wallets. If conservatives don't stand up to liberalism, no one will. And for a long time around here, almost no one did.”

DeLay shows us the problem with the blue-red divide within America. It is characterizations like these.

Indeed, I believe the Hammer to have, pardon the pun, nailed the problem right on its head. Too often, Democrats come across as tax-happy spendthrifts who claim to know exactly what’s good for you, whether or like it or not. While this philosophy is obviously an exaggeration, it has its basis in some ugly facts.

Democrats seem to be quite fond of taking your money and sending it halfway around the world. I agree that we should be spending more on foreign aid—because, after all, we live in a global world where civil strife thousands of miles away will inevitably affect our peace at home—but I understand the plight of many Americans confused as to why Democrats want to send their money to Africa when there are people starving and unemployed here at home. And foreign aid is only one example of a correct policy that is often the victim of Republican mudslinging.

Democrats need to take control of the debate, and for this problem, I offer a three-pronged approach:

1) Spend wisely. Let’s take a look at the way we spend the taxpayers’ money. Citizens Against Government Waste estimates that approximately 29 billion dollars were spent on pork barrel projects in 2006 alone. This is an issue that stretches across party lines, but an issue Democrats can use to their advantage. Democrats should step up to the plate and take the lead on cutting spending. If Democratic senators and representatives can look past the short-term personal interests served by wasteful pork barrel spending, we can make the Republicans look pretty wasteful. We cannot allow the GOP to have a monopoly on fiscal responsibility. Democratic support for social welfare programs needs to be reexamined. I am not advocating we withdraw our admirable support for those who have fallen on hard times and need a safety net, but we need to make it clear that what our party is proposing is not a “get out of work free” pass, but rather just a hand to catch you and get you back to work when you fall on hard times. While this may be what the party already believes, we as a party seem to have trouble articulating our vision. We cannot concede the high ground to Republicans on this issue; we must make it clear that Democrats are for hard work and the American Dream every bit as much as the Republicans. This brings me to my second point, which is…

2) Articulate the vision.With a few exceptions—Bill Clinton, John Edwards, and Barack Obama come to mind—our party seems to be sorely lacking in an effective verbal advocate. Democrats are not all about liberal tax-and-spend policies, but that does not seem to be the impression of at least half of the country. We are the real party of fiscal responsibility, as the booming economy and Clinton surpluses of the 1990s show, but that is frequently overlooked. Too often, Democrats allow the Republicans to control the direction of the debate. It’s embarrassing. Take, for example, the recent leak of the 2006 DCC agenda (think a Democratic version of the Contract with America), which included, among other things, a hike in the federal minimum wage, reinstating pay-as-you-go budget rules, and… “a sixth plank that has not yet been settled upon.” Yes, we’ve got image problems in this country.

And 3) Explain yourselves. Want to send my tax dollars to Africa? That’s great, now explain it. I am a big advocate of increasing the foreign aid budget, and I’ll tell you why. If a civil war erupts in some two-bit banana republic in South America, no matter how unimportant the country is, it affects the entire region. This in turn destabilizes the world economy. Similarly, in today’s technological world, you can travel halfway around the globe in not much more than a day. Diseases know no borders. AIDS probably started when a few dozen African tribesmen ate some infected chimpanzees. A decade later, we had nothing short of a global health crisis on our hands, one that did not discriminate based on nationality or sexual orientation. If a man catches the flu in Indonesia, he could be on a plane and roaming around New York City within the day. We need to prevent epidemics before they happen, and sometimes, that means treating them before they reach our borders. But we need to make that clear to American voters. It’s easy to fall into trap of acting morally superior, but “it’s the right thing to do” just isn’t cutting it. While the moral obligation to help our starving brethren abroad exists, it isn’t an effective argument for increased foreign aid. Self-interest is. The reason we help those in need around the world isn’t out of selfless interests—it’s out of selfish ones. We want to alleviate conflict and disease abroad before it becomes a problem for us at home. That’s all there is to it, but we seem to have trouble making that clear to the voters.

I’m sure y’all are tired of hearing me beat the drum of the DLC, James Carville, and other moderate (and I believe, highly effective) Dem strategists, but you’re about to hear me again: We have got to learn how to defend ourselves. We need to stop worrying about BS issues Americans don’t care about—stop freaking out about big agribusiness farm subsidies, for example—and get our act together.

We must advocate a vision. We need to offer a way to get out of the mess in Iraq, propose a legitimate plan for the national defense and comprehensive immigration reform, and promise to and then actually cut wasteful spending. We can’t just be about negatives—the failed Busby campaign in California showed us that. Francine Busby ran a campaign that was almost entirely negative. She offered little to the voters of the 50th District in the way of political goals, but instead ran a campaign based on little more than the argument that “Republicans are evil, evil, evil.” She almost won on that alone, but almost isn’t good enough. The Republican Party is irreversibly corrupt, but that alone is not an argument on behalf of Democrats.

To take back our rightful control of the House and Senate in ’06, we have to construct and then successfully advocate for a real vision for America.

But let's start tomorrow. Tonight, feel free to crack open that bottle of champagne (I'll buy), let your hair down, and celebrate the fact that Washington will soon be rid of Tom DeLay.

read more...