upcoming events

in the next two weeks:

see all upcoming events

announcements

Do you have old cell phones or used ink cartridges and want to recycle them? Contact Liz Fossett.

dems poll

Unfortunately our poll cannot be displayed on this page.

georgetown dems blog

read the rest of the blog

alumni

Are you a Georgetown Dems alum? We'd love to hear what you're doing now!

subscribe to our mailing list

mailing list archive

blog
Showing posts with label ~ryan guptill. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ~ryan guptill. Show all posts

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


read more...

(Note: This is a repost of Ryan Guptil's earlier blog post after the original was vandalized.)

Our fair city has been awash with language politics in the past few weeks as the President Bush and his administration’s spinmeisters have been pushing a wildly unpopular plan to increase troop levels in Iraq. First they termed the plan “a surge” of 21,500 extra troops. As “surge” became a rallying cry for the President’s opponents, the plan became “anaugmentation” of U.S. forces. By the State of the Union speech, the President had simply decided to send “reinforcements.” Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice even quarreled with Republican Senator Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Vietnam veteran, in a Senate hearing when he characterized the Bush administration’s proposed troop increase as an“escalation.”

Ignoring the subtleties of language politics, tens of thousands took to the National Mall last Sunday, joining military and foreign policy experts, Republicans and Democrats in Congress, and the vast majority of the American people in opposing the escalation. They believed that, as former New York Governor and potential Republican presidential candidate George Pataki stated in a speech at Georgetown last week, “by anyreasonable view” the President’s plan is not realistic and will not bring a lasting peace to Iraq. It is that fundamental fact which dooms the President’s plan, regardless of what he chooses to call it.

When military leaders surged U.S. troops in to Baghdad in a prior attempt to pacify the city, the only was result was increased resentment among Iraqis and to even more violence. The surge will put an even greater strain on U.S. forces that a recent Pentagon report said were already “stretched to the breaking point.”

The administration’s plan is contingent on the false hope that more U.S. troops will somehow lead to a new political and security effort by the desperately weak government of Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Simply adding more troops into the conflict without setting out a clear plan for leaving Iraq keeps al-Maliki in power without giving him any real incentive to tackle the deep sectarian conflicts that are tearing his country apart. Instead, he can rely on an indefinite U.S. troop commitment to prop him up and can thus avoid taking the politically difficult steps necessary to bring a stable political environment to his strife-ridden nation. Without a clear plan for a phased-redeployment of U.S. troops out of Iraq forcing the Iraqi government to act, there is little hope that Iraqi leaders will take action to stabilize their nation.

In addition, the President stubbornly refuses to accept the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group and others who have called for negotiations with Iraq’s neighbors, including Iran and Syria. Despite what the Study Group’s report calls “the ability of Iran and Syria to influence events within Iraq and their interest in avoiding chaos in Iraq,” the President continues to put American lives at risk by refusing to even consider negotiations. Instead of engaging in a tough — but constructive — dialogue that could reduce violence in Iraq, the President has been increasing tensions with Syria and particularly Iran with provocative rhetoric and veiled threats of military action.

Without a true political solution in Iraq and a broader diplomatic effort to bring regional powers to the table, the only guarantee offered by the President’s plan is that 21,500 more brave young Americans will be caught in the crossfire of an increasingly bloody civil war without any end in sight. Instead of pushing for more troops in Iraq, the President should be considering a plan offered by Democrats to strategically redeploy U.S. troops out of Iraq over the next six months.

Redeployment would end the culture of dependency in Iraqi military and political circles, forcing the Iraqis to step up and take responsibility for their destiny. Some U.S. troops would still be in the region, however, able to support Iraqi military operations and go after specific terrorist targets. Redeployment would also deprive the insurgents of their main rallying cry — that they are fighting a Western occupier intent on controlling the nation. Simultaneous U.S. with the redeployment, there would be a new “diplomatic surge” aimed at bringing regional and international partners into the process of stabilizing and rebuilding Iraq.

Democrats are offering a way forward in Iraq and way to start bringing our troops home. The President should stop squabbling over terminology and seriously consider the Democratic alternative. If he doesn’t, the U.S. will be left open-ended commitment to a prop up a failed state in the most turbulent region of the world. We will pay dearly for such a commitment, with tax dollars and with the lives of soldiers. The only word for that would be “disaster.”

(Post by Ryan Guptil.)

read more...

President Bush, say what you will about him, sure knows how to lay on the charm. In his affected folksy style, the President opened his State of the Union message Tuesday night with a seemingly genuine offer of congratulations to Nancy Pelosi for becoming the first female Speaker of the House. It was his only real acknowledgement in the speech of the sea change in American politics after the November 2006 mid-term elections. Though clothed in the rhetoric of bipartisanship and change, the substance of the President’s proposals was more of the same failed policy rejected by the American people in 2006.

Take, for example, the President’s healthcare proposal. The plan does little to help the 47 million Americans without healthcare because they don’t make enough money to qualify for it’s tax deduction. Additionally, by eliminating the current tax incentive for companies that offer health insurance to their workers, the plan threatens to undermine the employer-based healthcare system while failing to offer a real alternative for American families. The President’s new plan is just another in a long sting of attempts by his administration to shirk responsibility for critical health care issues through ill-conceived changes to the tax code.

Healthcare wasn’t the only policy arena in which the President made the old new again. Perhaps influenced by Al Gore’s two Oscar nominations for “An Inconvenient Truth,” the President seemed to change his tune on energy and the environment. For the first time, he acknowledged that global warming was a man-made problem, something many Republicans denied up until a few months ago. While the President’s grudging assent to what has long been the scientific consensus was welcome news, it’s hard to take his rhetoric seriously. Recall that in last year’s speech, the President declared that America was “addicted to oil” and pledged to reduce consumption. Only a week later, however, the President cut funding for alternative energy research. Moreover, the President’s failure to call for mandatory, enforceable caps on carbon emissions and his continued emphasis on domestic oil production undercut any claim that he is actually committed to substantive change on energy and environmental policy.

It was on the issue of Iraq, however, where the President displayed the most egregious example of his “stay the course” mentality and where Georgetown students should be most disappointed. Fortunate as we are to be studying at a top university, we owe it to our peers fighting overseas to demand a sensible strategy in Iraq. Yet all we got from the President was more of the same failed policies that have put too many of them in harm’s way.

Ignoring military and civilian experts, members of Congress from both parties, and the overwhelming majority of the American people (79 percent in one poll), the President reiterated his plan to escalate the war in Iraq by “surging” 21,500 more American troops into the middle of what is now widely regarded as an Iraqi civil war. The President justified his decision by saying that Congress and the American people “did not vote for failure” in Iraq. Yet he seemed oblivious to the fact that there can be no greater failure in Iraq that an indefinite commitment to prop up an incompetent government that pushes American military forces to the breaking point and continues to serve as a key recruiting tool for radical Islamists.

Though the President’s speech made it clear that he intends to operate as if little has changed here in Washington, the rest of the country knows what we Democrats know: The American people didn’t vote for failure when they elected Democrats to majorities in the House and Senate – they voted against the failed policies of President Bush and the Republicans. That’s why Democrats have been pursuing an aggressive and forward looking agenda in their first weeks in power. Democrats in Congress voted to raise the minimum wage and fully implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. They have taken on the challenge of energy by rolling back Bush’s massive tax cuts for big oil and proposing new funding for alternative fuels. They have proven their commitment to education by voting to dramatically reduce interest rates on student loans, something which will help a great many Georgetown students. On Iraq, Democrats stand united in our opposition to escalation and we are calling for a phased redeployment in the next six months to force Iraqis to take responsibility for their own security. Simultaneously, we want an aggressive and genuine diplomatic effort in the region and the wider world to mobilize Iraq’s neighbors and the international community to help reduce sectarian strife and continue reconstruction.

So even if President Bush can’t seem to acknowledge “staying the course” just won’t work, we Democrats will continue to work for a new direction for our country. And as for Madam Speaker, well, let’s just say, it was about time.

*Note: A version of this article was published in the 1/26/07 Hoya

read more...