WUStL College Democrats

Updates

2006-09-29T17:34:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the long delay in blogging. I'll be putting up some more things over the weekend and we're soon going to move this blog to our own website, so stay tuned!

But in the meantime, I just wanted to let you all know the following.

The awful detainee bill has passed the Senate and the House; while the majority of Democrats voted against it and while several made excellent speeches, including Sen. Clinton, Sen. Feingold, Sen. Kerry, Sen. Obama, Rep. Skelton of Missouri and others, the bill unfortunately passed both Houses. Unfortunately, 12 Senate Democrats and 34 House Democrats voted for the bill, including some shocking ones like Rep. Sherrod Brown of Ohio. Brown, who is running for the Ohio Senate seat and is winning right now, has one of the most liberal records in the House. On this he's wrong, and so are the other Democrats who voted for the bill. The one consolation is that the majority of the Senate and House Democrats ARE against this bill and there's a very good chance that the Supreme Court will rule this unconstitutional.

Really, if you want to be enlightened on the detainee bill, I can urge nothing else but to watch this brilliant clip by Stephen Colbert, who explains it probably better than anybody else.

Elsewhere, I'll turn to some happier news. Democratic prospects in Congress are looking up! (That's the happy part.) Rep. Mark Foley (R-Fla.) resigned suddenly today following the release yesterday of emails and instant message communications (some sexually explicit) he had sent to a 16-year old boy.

Foley's resignation instantly and unexpectedly practically gives the Democrats another pickup; Foley's name will remain on the ballot and the Democrat, who was a no-hoper yesterday morning, is now the likely winner.

This means that we will need to pick up only 12 seats in the House to take control!

In the Senate, our prospects are going in two directions. We are still in a dead-heat here in Missouri, but we're entering a dead-heat in Tennessee and Virginia looks set to be a dead-heat as well, following a host of allegations of racism against Sen. George Allen (R). On the other hand, New Jersey Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez is running behind and is coming under fire for ethical concerns, which may mean a loss of one seat.

Bill Clinton Smacks Down Chris Wallace of Fox News

2006-09-25T18:21:00.000-05:00

AP Photo/Fox News Sunday, Michael Simon

Many of you may already have heard about or seen former President William Jefferson Clinton's smackdown of Fox News' Chris Wallace. Wallace asked Clinton why he didn't do more to kill or capture Osama bin Laden while in office, prompting a furious and unexpected flare-up from Clinton. Clinton lashed out at his right-wing critics and accused Wallace of trying to perform a "little right-wing hit-job."

I think one can credibly argue that Clinton's reaction may have been a bit over-the-top, but given the right-wing smearing of his terrorism efforts, I think it's understandable. For the past several years, the Republicans have been repeatedly trying to blame Clinton for 9/11 (in fact, they try to blame Clinton on everything). The effort appeared to peak with ABC's broadcast some weeks back of an ABC docudrama called The Path to 9/11 (written by an out-and-out conservative filmmaker and friend of Rush Limbaugh's). The film fabricated several scenes that baldly stated that the Clinton White House hampered anti-terrorism efforts.

None of this is to say that the Clinton White House didn't make some mistakes in fighting Al Qaeda, but the charge that they were negligent of Al Qaeda during their administration was debunked both by the 9/11 Commission Report and by former Counter-terrorism czar Richard Clarke's Against All Enemies.

I'll let the Big Dawg speak for himself. You really MUST watch this clip, generously hosted by crooksandliars.com. The file is about 1 MB and is about 20 minutes long, so if you don't have space or bandwith and would prefer to stream it, you can do so at ThinkProgress.org, which displays a slightly shorter clip of the same exchange (the only part that is lost is the first question, which is on a different topic).

A Sham Compromise on Torture

2006-09-22T17:24:00.000-05:00

Allow me to rant for a few paragraphs on the media lovefest with Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.). John McCain is a good man who I respect. I certainly think he would have been a better president these last six years than President Bush and he's certainly better than many of the other people Republicans have to offer. But he is not some knight in shining armor; not only is he very solidly conservative on most issues, he is, in the end, a politician. That doesn't make him a bad person, but it does mean that he does not deserve immunity from criticism due to a carefully-cultivated image as a "maverick". And just because he has a knack for forging compromises doesn't mean those compromises are inherently desirable.

For much of the Washington punditry, any "compromise" is Solomonic in its wisdom, bestowed upon weary, American subjects by our saintly "moderates" and "mavericks" in Congress. This facile view of policymaking relies on the implicit assumption that the "right" answer is always halfway between points A and B.

Let me be clear - I am not arguing against moderation. I am not arguing against pragmatically cutting a deal. What I am against are compromises that cede ground on core principles such as human rights. And what I am also against are compromises that claim to be upholding fairness and common-sense but which in fact grant one side 90% of what they seek and 10% of what the other side seeks.

The bold "compromise" on torture that was announced yesterday by Sens. John McCain, Lindsey Graham, and John Warner fit both those criteria. While the Republican moderates' heart may have been in the right place, the end result of their bargaining is a near-total capitulation on torture; while it is worded to sound high-minded, it leaves near-total discretion to the White House.

And thankfully, in spite of their usual fawning, much of the mainstream press is seeing it in the same way.

The NY Times: A Bad Bargain

Published: September 22,
2006

Here is a way to measure how seriously President Bush was willing to compromise on the military tribunals bill: Less than an hour after an agreement was announced yesterday with three leading Republican senators, the White House was already laying a path to wiggle out of its one real concession.

About the only thing that Senators John Warner, John McCain and Lindsey Graham had to show for their defiance was Mr. Bush’s agreement to drop his insistence on allowing prosecutors of suspected terrorists to introduce classified evidence kept secret from the defendant. The White House agreed to abide by the rules of courts-martial, which bar secret evidence. (Although the administration’s supporters continually claim this means giving classified information to terrorists, the rules actually provide for reviewing, editing and summarizing classified material. Evidence that cannot be safely declassified cannot be introduced.)

This is a critical point. As Senator Graham keeps noting, the United States would never stand for any other country’s convicting an American citizen with undisclosed, secret evidence. So it seemed like a significant concession — until Stephen Hadley, the national security adviser, briefed reporters yesterday evening. He said that while the White House wants to honor this deal, the chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, Duncan Hunter, still wants to permit secret evidence and should certainly have his say. To accept this spin requires believing that Mr. Hunter, who railroaded Mr. Bush’s original bill through his committee, is going to take any action not blessed by the White House.

On other issues, the three rebel senators achieved only modest improvements on the White House’s original positions. They wanted to bar evidence obtained through coercion. Now, they have agreed to allow it if a judge finds it reliable (which coerced evidence hardly can be) and relevant to guilt or innocence. The way coercion is measured in the bill, even those protections would not apply to the prisoners at Guantánamo Bay.

The deal does next to nothing to stop the president from reinterpreting the Geneva Conventions. While the White House agreed to a list of “grave breaches” of the conventions that could be prosecuted as war crimes, it stipulated that the president could decide on his own what actions might be a lesser breach of the Geneva Conventions and what interrogation techniques he considered permissible. It’s not clear how much the public will ultimately learn about those decisions. They will be contained in an executive order that is supposed to be made public, but Mr. Hadley reiterated that specific interrogation techniques will remain secret.

Georgetown Law Professor, Marty Lederman also harshly criticized the so-called "compromise" from his blog, Balkinization. The bill was also criticized by the Washington Post.

Simply put, the Republican moderates in the Senate caved. Their bill essentially relies on the goodwill of the administration and stops well short of the high-minded goals they set out to achieve. Perhaps an anonymous Bush Administration source put it best:

A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said in an interview that Bush essentially got what he asked for in a different formulation that allows both sides to maintain that their concerns were addressed. "We kind of take the scenic route, but we get there," the official said.

Sadly, the Democrats largely ceded this issue to the Republicans and have uttered nary a peep over the bill. The Democrats MUST confront this and call it out for what it is. Let's hope that a Democratic Senate and/or House will aggressively confront the White House on this. God knows how effective those Republican moderates have been on this.

McCaskill and Talent Debate

2006-09-22T17:02:00.000-05:00

Last Friday, Claire McCaskill and Jim Talent met in the first of five debates for their Senate race. They were joined by the nominees of the Libertarian and Progressive Parties. A recap of the debate, which was not televised, can be read here.

Voter ID Update

2006-09-22T16:36:00.000-05:00

Sorry for the delay in posting, folks. It has been a busy week. But let's get to business.

Let's first update everybody on the Voter ID Law. Last week, a local judge ruled against the law.

Missouri's new voter ID law was found unconstitutional Thursday by Cole County Circuit Judge Richard Callahan.

Senate Bill 1014, signed into law June 14 by Gov. Matt Blunt, required Missourians to show a valid federal or state-issued photo ID to vote this November.

Callahan had combined two lawsuits challenging the law: One claimed the voter ID rule violates the Hancock Amendment against unfunded mandates, the other claiming that the law placed an unconstitutional burden on thousands of Missourians without photo identification. The case is expected to eventually go to the state Supreme Court.

In a statement late Thursday, Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan said, "I am pleased with Judge Callahan's ruling to stop the photo ID law, signed in June by Governor Blunt, from going into effect for the November election. This ruling affirms my concern that the law clearly
jeopardizes the constitutional voting rights of many Missourians."

IF the judge's decision stands, student voters will not be required to show a state-issued photo ID in order to vote. Nevertheless, we along with the Democratic campaigns are staying cautious. The ruling is being appealed to the Missouri Supreme Court and it is possible it will be reinstated before the election. We are still advising all students to obtain a state-issued ID if possible. Requirements include a birth certificate and a social security card or some other form of proof of residency. For detailed information, please contact the elections division of office of the MO Secretary of State.

Please note, however, that in the event the law is reinstated and you are unable to obtain a state-issued ID, you can still vote with a provisional ballot, provided you have some type of photo ID. We are told that the ballots have a 90% chance of being counted, so don't be discouraged to go and vote. Additionally, should you be unable to vote in person on election day, due to legitimate commitments that prevent you from voting, you may request to vote absentee from the local elections office. Absentee voting does not require a state-issued ID.

Nationally, voter ID laws are also making the news due to the efforts of the Republican House of Representatives to pass such legislation nationally. Luckily, the legislation would still have to get past the Senate and the White House and would not go into effect until 2010.

But while such requirements certainly pose an obstacle, we do want to reiterate that students can and should vote in November. If you are not registered in Missouri and would like to vote in-state (provided, of course, that you are a Wash U. student) you can download the forms here.

Bill Clinton on The Daily Show Tonight, 10 PM

2006-09-18T17:55:00.000-05:00

Our illustrious 42nd President, William Jefferson Clinton, will be gracing Jon Stewart's presence tonight on the Daily Show.

Don't miss it!

Poll: McCaskill Leads by 3

2006-09-14T22:18:00.000-05:00

Most recent polls have shown Jim Talent with a narrow lead within the margin of error. Rasmussen (a firm that correctly called every state in the 2004 electoral college vote) today announced a poll that shows McCaskill leading Talent 45% to 42%.

The actual announcement is premium content, so I don't unfortunately have the opportunity to give you the other numbers (sample size, margin of error, registered voters vs. likely voters). Take this with a grain of salt; it's close, quite probably within the margin of error and it may be an outlier. But it's very encouraging nevertheless.

Oh, and on the topic of good news for Claire, Bill Clinton raised $1 million for her campaign. Given that Talent currently has $6.9 million on hand while Claire currently has $2.7 million, money is clearly Claire's Achilles' heel. Although I know we're all college students with limited cash, consider giving to her campaign if you have some spare change. The campaign could really use it.

And while still on the subject, here are some new ads from Claire's campaign. Enjoy!

McCaskill Gets the Rams on TV

2006-09-14T22:11:00.000-05:00

I missed this on Sunday; savvy move on Claire's part

The St. Louis Rams' season opener against the Denver Broncos is a sellout, ensuring that it will be televised on KMOV-TV, Channel 4, in the St. Louis region, beginning at noon.

The Rams had about 500 tickets left unsold Thursday, but all those tickets were purchased a couple of hours before the deadline of noon Friday.

Missouri Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill purchased 100 of the remaining tickets, her office said Friday.

In turn, McCaskill gave 90 of the tickets to students at Clyde C. Miller Career Academy, a St. Louis high school. The remaining 10 went to the George Washington Carver House, which provides crisis intervention for youths and their families.

Under the NFL's blackout rule, teams normally have until 72 hours before kickoff to sell out games or they'll be blacked out locally.

She bought herself some free media and the goodwill of lots of Rams fans. While intuitively one doubts this kind of thing counts, given the margins in this race, just maybe it will.

The Missouri Senate Race: Why is it So Important?

2006-09-13T23:33:00.001-05:00

Why, exactly, is the Missouri Senate race so important? The reason is this race may well be the decisive one in determining control of the Senate.

Let's take a look at the numbers. At present, the Republicans control 55 seats, the Democrats 45 (Jim Jeffords of Vermont, a registered independent and former Republican, caucuses with the Democrats). To take control, Democrats need to win SIX seats. Five seats would yield another 50-50 senate (which we had in 2001 for a few months) in which Republicans would still be in control due to Vice President Cheney's tie-braking vote.

Six seats is a tall order, and due to the state-by-state breakdown of this year, it is harder than usual. That's why most analysts still think we have less than a 50-50 chance to regain the Senate. Given the national anti-Republican mood, however, a six-seat takeover is possible. Only, that is, if we win virtually every major race.

The most competitive Senate races this year are in Minnesota, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Missouri, Montana, Tennessee, Connecticut, and maybe Virginia.

Democrats currently hold the Minnesota, Maryland, and New Jersey seats. Both Minnesota and Maryland are open seats in which Democratic incumbents are retiring. Currently, the Democratic nominees in both states are ahead in the polls. We have a strong likelihood of holding these seats.

In New Jersey, recently-appointed Sen. Robert Menendez is facing a tough reelection campaign from State Sen. Tom Kean, Jr. (the son of popular former NJ Governor Tom Kean, Sr.) Polls have shown the two roughly tied, Menendez being weighed down by allegations of corruption in a state well known for it. On election night, Menendez will be slightly favored barring anything dramatic. If the national mood stays this anti-Republican, New Jersey, a blue state, will stay in the blue column. Still, this is our most endangered seat and is the most likely pick-up opportunity for the Republicans.

The other Dem-held seat that is undergoing a competitive race is Connecticut. Former Vice Presidential candidate and prominent centrist Democrat, Joe Lieberman, was defeated in the primary by challenger Ned Lamont who ran an anti-Iraq War campaign. Lieberman is now running an independent campaign under the ballot line "Connecticut for Lieberman." Lieberman nevertheless remains a registered Democrat and has pledged that he will caucus with the Democrats if reelected. With the Republican nominee registering in the single-digits, Democrats will hold this seat regardless of whether Lieberman or Lamont wins.

That takes us to the Republican-held seats. To recap, Republicans hold the following seats in competitive races: Pennyslvania, Rhode Island, Ohio, Montana, Missouri, with Tennessee and Virginia following behind. Only Tennessee features an open seat (Bill Frist is retiring to run a no-hope campaign for president).

Democrats are favored in Pennsylvania, a center-left state being represented by arch-conservative Rick Santorum. Democratic nominee, Bob Casey, Jr. has led consistently in the polls and although recent polls indicated the race has tightened, it will be extraordinary if Casey loses.

Current polls also indicate that, at present, Democratic challengers lead narrowly in Rhode Island (discussed previously), Montana, and Ohio. Rhode Island and Pennsylvania are blue states. And although Ohio and Montana are red states, both states feature unpopular incumbents and electorates that are extremely angry at the state-level Republicans.

Assuming that Democrats hold all three of their competitive seats (Minnesota, Maryland, and New Jersey) and assuming that we pick up all four of the just-mentioned states (Ohio, Montana, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania) that leaves Missouri, Tennessee, and Virginia.

To win control of the Senate under the aforementioned conditions, Democrats must win two out of these three races. Out of these, Missouri's is the most competitive. Missouri is also the least Republican state out of all three, with Tennessee the most. It is highly unlikely that Democrats will pick up Tennessee and Virginia without picking up Missouri. It is highly unlikely that Democrats will even be able to pick up both Tennessee and Virginia, regardless of what happens in Missouri. There is very little margin of error. Simply put, if McCaskill doesn't win in Missouri, we will not pick up the Senate.

***

Competitive Democratic-Held Senate Races:

1. Minnesota
Amy Klobuchar (D) vs. Mark Kennedy (R)

2. Maryland
Ben Cardin (D) vs. Michael Steele (R)

3. New Jersey
Robert Menendez (D) inc. vs. Tom Kean, Jr. (R)

4. Connecticut
Joe Lieberman (D) inc. vs. Ned Lamont (D)

Competitive Republican-Held Senate Races:

1. Pennsylvania
Bob Casey, Jr. (D) vs. Rick Santorum (R) inc.

2. Rhode Island
Sheldon Whitehouse (D) vs. Lincoln Chafee (R) inc.

3. Montana
Jon Tester (D) vs. Conrad Burns (R) inc.

4. Ohio
Sherrod Brown (D) vs. Mike DeWine (R) inc.

5. Missouri
Claire McCaskill (D) vs. Jim Talent (R) inc.

6. Tennessee
Harold E. Ford, Jr. (D) vs. Bob Corker (R)

7. Virginia
Jim Webb (D) vs. George Allen (R) inc.

RI-Sen: Primary Results

2006-09-13T22:44:00.000-05:00

Looks like liberal Republican senator, Lincoln Chafee (RI), will hold onto his party's nomination. Chafee was challenged in the Republican primary by archconservative Stephen Laffey. Given Rhode Island's bright blue, election-map hue, a win by Laffey would have virtually guaranteed the Rhode Island seat for Democrats.

As is, the Democratic challenger, the auspiciously-named Sheldon Whitehouse, has been tied or narrowly leading Chafee in the polls. We still have a very decent chance at taking this seat, only we will have to fight for it. Had Laffey won the Republican nod, the Republicans had already said they would abandon the seat (polls showed him losing to Whitehouse by 30 points).

Chafee is a liberal on most issues - he is an Iraq War opponent (only Republican in the Senate to vote against the Iraq War Resolution in 2002) and didn't even vote for this President Bush in 2004 (he wrote-in George Herbert Walker Bush). Unfortunately, his state's Democrats view him as ineffectual. He has no positive impact in his caucus and, as such, the biggest vote that matters is his vote for Senate leadership. And here Chafee votes lockstep. It's unfortunate that someone like Chafee is being squeezed out, but in the current political climate, there is little choice. There are very few Republican moderates left in Congress and, like Chafee, most that are present are thoroughly ineffectual.

Chafee's Democratic challenger, Sheldon Whitehouse, will vote as liberal as Chafee (probably more so) AND will vote for Democratic leadership in the Senate. Majority leadership in the Senate is extremely important. Without it, a party's ability to introduce legislation, launch inquiries, and steer committees is extremely limited. It may seem harsh, but that's the reality of today's politics - a reality that Democrats didn't want but have seen forced upon them by the lockstep Republican Caucus.

UPDATE (9/15): The center-left (in truth, a little uncomfortably neo-Conish) opinion journal The New Republic has an editorial up calling for the ouster of Moderate Republicans from Congress. The article is available with free registration, but I'll post a few choice bits here:

When GOP moderates appeal to the spirit of bipartisanship or claim they can influence their leadership, they are recalling a bygone era. For the longest time, U.S. parties lacked ideological
coherence. Northern liberals voted Republican and Southern conservatives voted Democrat, with the result that party affiliation meant less in the United States than in nearly any other democracy. In this world, it made sense to evaluate your senator or representative less on party affiliation than philosophical convictions.

...

From the moment they took power in 1995, Republicans made it clear that they would act differently. Those Republicans who wanted to head committees had to pledge their loyalty to the
party agenda. Republicans saw themselves less as a traditional U.S. political party--with diffuse power and independent personalities--than a parliamentary majority working in unison. From a standpoint of effectiveness, the GOP's record of winning floor votes and clinging to a majority in support of an often-unpopular agenda is impressive.

Of course, maintaining that majority has required Republicans to win the votes of many Americans who don't support their agenda. That's where the GOP moderates come in. Unlike the
moderate wing of the old Democratic majority, they seldom do anything without the tacit consent of the leadership. GOP moderates are allowed-- indeed, encouraged--to publicly scold their party leaders, because that's how they hold onto their districts.

But these displays of independence are a sham. Republicans have invented, or perfected, numerous methods of projecting the fake image of intraparty dissent. One trick is something they privately call "catch and release," whereby they let members from vulnerable districts vote against the leadership--unless their vote is decisive, in which case they are pressured to recant. Last year, for instance, Pennsylvania Representative Jim Gerlach reversed himself and provided the decisive vote for a refinery bill.

...

At best, moderate Republicans have been hapless dupes. At worst, they've been co-conspirators. In either case, they have done almost nothing to alleviate the radical or corrupt tendencies of Republican Washington. Extinguishing the moderates at the polls this November is not a vote for mindless partisanship. It is simply a vote for transparency.

MO-Sen: Republicans Assail McCaskill for Comments on Hurricane Katrina

2006-09-08T17:28:00.000-05:00

Claire McCaskill has ruffled some feathers today with comments made at a meeting of St. Louis city officials, including Mayor Francis Slay. Said McCaskill:

“George Bush let people die on rooftops in New Orleans because they were poor and because they were black.”

Sens. Elizabeth Dole (R-NC), the head of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, and Bill Frist (R-TN), the Senate Majority Leader, have predictably attacked McCaskill for her comments. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch has written about the brouhaha here.

Nevertheless, we at the Wash U. College Democrats feel Claire's comments, while a little abrasive, are basically true. President Bush is hardly a racist, but there was clearly callousness and indifference to the suffering of the victims. The Bush-Cheney federal government response (or lack thereof) ignored the plight of those less fortunate both before and after the storm. Katrina illustrated better than anything else the criminal incompetence and uncaring detachment that lies at the heart of this administration.

That is why it is imperative that we take back at least one house of Congress. Undivided Republican rule has to cease. Why not this November?

2006-09-04T19:13:00.000-05:00

The Wash U. College Democrats blog is back in business following the summer vacation. Those of us with the College Dems hope all of you had a great summer vacation and we're looking forward to a good year. We have no illusions about our members' free time; the fall semester will likely be a lot of work for most of us. Still, we hope that many of you will devote some time to getting Democrats elected, especially Claire McCaskill, the Democratic Senate candidate for Missouri.

McCaskill is locked in a VERY tight battle with Republican incumbent Sen. Jim Talent. The polls have teetered back-and-forth over the summer, with McCaskill nursing a narrow lead at times, Talent leading at others.McCaskill has nursed a lead during most of the summer months. More recently, a substantial television ad buy by Talent has reduced his negatives and allowed him to pull even or slightly ahead of McCaskill. A recent USA Today/Gallup poll had Talent at 50 and McCaskill at 44 among likely voters, although the two were tied under registered voters. A more recent poll by Research 2000 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, had McCaskill leading Talent by a single point. The Post-Dispatch elaborates:

U.S. Sen. Jim Talent's deluge of ad spending apparently has paid off.

The latest Research 2000 poll for the Post-Dispatch and KMOV-TV (Channel 4) found that Talent, R-Mo., has chipped away the edge held by his Democratic rival, state Auditor Claire McCaskill.

With a little more than two months left before Election Day, the two are in a statistical dead heat.

The Maryland-based firm's latest poll of 800 likely voters, conducted Monday through Thursday, found that 47 percent backed McCaskill and 46 percent supported Talent. Two percent supported Libertarian Frank Gilmour, while the remaining 5 percent were undecided.

McCaskill’s biggest liability is money. At last count, Talent had three times as much campaign money on hand as McCaskill. In her favor is the poor national and statewide climate for Republicans who are suffering due to the poor approval ratings for President Bush, for Congress, and for Republican Governor Matt Blunt (approval rating: 40%).

We’ll have a lot more on the Talent-McCaskill race over the coming weeks and months and we hope as many of you as possible will volunteer or donate to her campaign. This is a MUST-WIN seat for the Democrats. Simply put, if McCaskill does not win, the Democrats will not win back the Senate.

For those interested in learning more about McCaskill, here is her website (for those who missed the first link). Here is an interview she had with blogger Jonathon Singer of MyDD.com.

Bawk bawk bawk

2006-04-25T16:19:00.000-05:00

Ann Coulter has chickened out of her debate with Donna Brazile tonight at SLU. Her official reason is a "sore throat," and she tried to cover her tracks today by backing out of a commitment at Cornell. I'd say the medical diagnosis is mistaken; looks more like cold feet in my opinion.

Post-Franken, see Ann Coulter vs. Donna Brazille

2006-04-24T19:56:00.000-05:00

So we hope everybody will be able to make it for Al Franken's radio broadcast from Graham Chapel on Tuesday (11 to 2). Post-Franken, if you've the time, make your political afternoon into a full-day affair! Donna Brazille and Ann Coulter will be debating at S.L.U.

This should be fun. If you're interested, read the invite below that was sent to us by S.L.U.

Donna Brazile and Ann Coulter to Headline Saint Louis University’s First Political Debate

Ann Coulter is the legal correspondent for Human Events and writes a popular syndicated column for Universal Press Syndicate. She is a frequent guest on many TV shows, including Wolf Blitzer Reports, The O'Reilly Factor, and Good MorningAmerica and has been profiled in numerous publications, including TV Guide, the New York Observer, National Journal, and Elle magazine. She was named one of the top 100 Public Intellectuals by federal judge Richard Posner in 2001. She was the subject of a cover story in Time Magazine in April 2005. Ann also is the author of three New York Times best selling books.

A veteran of numerous national and statewide campaigns, Donna Brazile worked on several presidential campaigns for Democratic candidates, including Carter-Mondale in 1976 and 1980, Rev. Jesse Jackson's first historic bid for the presidency in 1984, Mondale-Ferraro in 1984, U.S. Representative Dick Gephardt in 1988, Dukakis-Bentsen in 1988, and Clinton-Gore in 1992 and 1996. Brazile also was the former Campaign Manager for Gore-Lieberman 2000 - the first African American to lead a major presidential campaign. Donna Brazile is a weekly contributor and political commentator on CNN's Inside Politics and American Morning. In addition, she is a columnist for Roll Call Newspaper and appears regularly on MSNBC's Hardball and Fox's Hannity and Colmes.

The debate will be conducted Tuesday, April 25th at 7 p.m. in the Busch Student Center’s Multipurpose Room, 20 N. Grand Blvd. This event is brought to you by the Great Issues Committee, a student-led group which brings speakers to campus to explore current issues.

This event is free and open to the public, but priority will be given to members of the SLU community. Parking is available in the garage on the corner of Grand and Laclede.

WHO: Saint Louis University

WHAT: Inheritance: America’s Future in a Globalized World

WHEN: Tuesday, April 25 at 7:00 PM

WHERE: Multipurpose Room of the Busch Student Center, 20 N. Grand Blvd

INFO: Admission is free and open to the public. However, priority will be given to members of the Saint Louis University community. For more information, please call (314) 977-2805.

Franken

2006-04-20T20:51:00.000-05:00

Al Franken will be coming to campus on Tuesday, April 25 (see www.washudems.org for more details).

Sorry we haven't been able to update the blog as much lately, but as I'm sure you all know, final exam and paper season has begun (and believe me, for me it's already in full swing).

Claire McCaskill Coming to Campus on Monday

2006-04-15T16:19:00.000-05:00

Claire McCaskill, Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate and current State Auditor, is coming to campus on Monday, April 17. McCaskill will be speaking at 8 PM in Friedman Lounge in Wohl on the South 40. We'd like to ensure a large turnout, so mark your calenders and bring your friends!

McCaskill may be somewhat familiar to veterans of the 2004 election season in which McCaskill was the Democratic candidate for governor, losing narrowly to current Gov. Matt Blunt. Wash U's Student Life endorsed McCaskill in that campaign.

For more information about McCaskill, please visit her website. Here too is a Google-cache of recent news concerning her. Also, read older posts from this blog, as several concern the '06 Senate race.

If you're curious about Sen. Jim Talent, the Republican, please visit Project Vote Smart and OntheIssues.org, both of which have also compiled information on the voting record of Sen. Talent, the Republican incumbent. (As McCaskill is not an incumbent member of Congress, neither website has anything about her positions on the issues.)

Why Should I Vote for the Democrats?

2006-04-09T16:20:00.000-05:00

“Sure, the Republicans are terrible. But are the Democrats any better?”

This question is constantly asked by people both inside and outside the beltway. Whatever people might feel about the Republicans, the Democrats just don’t cut it. Such ambivalence extends well beyond political independents to include most partisan Democrats as well. To most outside observers, Democrats are weak and divided, timid and unprincipled, and intellectually bankrupt compared with the Republicans. It’s a theme reinforced by most political reporting, by the pundits, and by much of the liberal blogosphere.

How valid a view is this? Not very, suggests Amy Sullivan in a widely-praised piece in the Washington Monthly journal. There are certainly kinks in the armor, but there is much to praise in the current Democratic Party, which has been a far more effective opposition party than is given credit. Concludes Sullivan,

In 2002 and 2003, Joshua Micah Marshall wrote a series of articles for this magazine about the myth of Republican competence. In one of those pieces, he referenced Thomas Kuhn's famous paradigm theory, which maintains that people can hold fast to a theory or narrative even as vast amounts of contradictory evidence piles up. At the time, there were plenty of indications pointing to GOP missteps and policy failures. But Republican message discipline, and a general awe of the Bush White House's corporate authority model, ruled the day. Everyone “knew” the Bush administration was a well-oiled machine. It took three more years, more than 2300 U.S. troops dead in Iraq, a botched relief effort for Hurricane Katrina victims, and the vice president shooting a guy in the face for the narrative to change. Yes, it is possible for conventional wisdom to be that wrong.

So it is that Democrats can be “hopelessly divided” while voting together 88 percent of the time, according to Congressional Quarterly; just one percentage point lower than the vaunted lock-step Republican caucus. They can be “pathetically ineffective” while dealing a humiliating defeat to the president's biggest domestic policy effort. They can be deemed “weak” and “timid” while setting the terms of the debate for pulling troops out of Iraq.

It seems the only way this particular narrative is going to change is with a Democratic victory in November. “They'll have to pay attention to us if we win,” Slaughter told me. Taking back either house of Congress while battling the idea that they're a weak, ineffective party with no ideas won't be easy for Democrats. But stranger things have happened. Just ask Newt Gingrich.

I encourage readers to read the whole piece.

For those interested in somewhat more critical take, refer to Greg Anrig from TPM Café, whose post is responded to by Matt Yglesias here.

So what have Democrats been doing? Well, Russ Feingold has just announced his support for gay marriage:

“Gay and lesbian people in our country are fighting a mean-spirited movement to harm them and to discriminate against them,” Feingold, D-Wis., said in a telephone interview. “I stand with them against that movement, and I'm proud to stand with them.”

Feingold said he decided to express his support for gay marriage in response to a Wisconsin constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage and civil unions, which will appear on the state ballot in November.

Feingold’s call for censure of the president for authorizing wiretaps without court warrants has just received support from John Edwards and John Kerry.

Speaking about John Kerry (remember him?) he has just made a call for a withdrawal from Iraq within a year in a piece in the New York Times, calling for “Two Deadlines and an Exit”:

As our generals have said, the war cannot be won militarily. It must be won politically. No American soldier should be sacrificed because Iraqi politicians refuse to resolve their ethnic and political differences.

So far, Iraqi leaders have responded only to deadlines - a deadline to transfer authority to a provisional government, and a deadline to hold three elections.

Now we must set another deadline to extricate our troops and get Iraq up on its own two feet.

Iraqi politicians should be told that they have until May 15 to put together an effective unity government or we will immediately withdraw our military. If Iraqis aren't willing to build a unity government in the five months since the election, they're probably not willing to build one at all. The civil war will only get worse, and we will have no choice anyway but to leave.

If Iraq's leaders succeed in putting together a government, then we must agree on another deadline: a schedule for withdrawing American combat forces by year's end. Doing so will empower the new Iraqi leadership, put Iraqis in the position of running their own country and undermine support for the insurgency, which is fueled in large measure by the majority of Iraqis who want us to leave their country. Only troops essential to finishing the job of training Iraqi forces should remain.

Kerry spoke of his position on Meet the Press this morning (transcript).

Sen. Barack Obama has recently announced a very reasonable package for increasing our energy independence. Obama also sharply criticized the President’s half-hearted energy package:

… after the President’s last State of the Union, when he told us that America was addicted to oil, there was a brief moment of hope that he’d finally do something on energy.

I was among the hopeful. But then I saw the plan.

His funding for renewable fuels is at the same level it was the day he took office. He refuses to call for even a modest increase in fuel-efficiency standards for cars. And his latest budget funds less then half of the energy bill he himself signed into law - leaving hundreds of millions of dollars in under-funded energy proposals.

This is not a serious effort. Saying that America is addicted to oil without following a real plan for energy independence is like admitting alcoholism and then skipping out on the 12-step program. It’s not enough to identify the challenge – we have to meet it.

What to make of all this? To be fair, there is quite a bit Democrats can do better. The party still needs to find a real unifying theme for the 2006 campaign. Democrats in red-state races need to be more forthright about what they believe and the party still has a ways to go on national security and on Iraq. While it’s difficult to imagine that Democrats could have defeated the nominations of Sam Alito or John Roberts, the opposition to them (Alito especially) was incoherent and divided.

But for all the party’s faults, knee-jerk dissatisfaction with Democrats and is inaccurate and self-defeating. I'll leave it to Sam Rosenfeld in the TAPPED to put it simply:

Amy is very right here. Much of her focus is on the mainstream media narratives that continue to portray Democrats as invariably weak, divided, and feckless. But MSM cluelessness is an old story -- what's frankly more troubling and frustrating is the unyielding scorn and hostility that Democratic activists and netroots folks heap on the Democratic congressional leadership.
Take the question of caucus discipline. The lack of comparative context underlying liberal critics' incessant carping on this front is glaring -- compared to both recent and much more longstanding historical precedent, the current Democratic opposition has not only been disciplined and unified, but effective. Improvements can always be made, but it's simple ignorance to portray the state of the congressional caucuses under Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi as indistinguishable from what we saw under Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt in the early Bush years or, for that matter, what we saw from Democrats during the 1990s, when first Democratic congressional majorities confirmed Clarence Thomas and completely flubbed a major opportunity for universal healthcare legislation, then later Democratic congressional minorities joined ranks with Republicans on any number of illiberal, corporate-friendly initiatives. The current Democratic caucus is more ideologically unified, more disciplined in their votes, and on most scores more liberal than it has been in recent history.

Democrats don’t need to fall into an uncritical, Republican-style cult-worship, but we hardly need to be ultra-critical or overlook the real achievements of the Democratic caucus.

Universal healthcare in MA

2006-04-04T19:31:00.000-05:00

Massachusetts is set to offer universal healthcare to all of its residents. The state legislature, which is 85% Democrat, passed a bill that Republican governor and presidential hopeful Mitt Romney said he will sign. But the most interesting thing about this bill is that it is being lauded by both liberals and conservatives, both the progressive lobby and the business lobby. Republicans are praising the bill's emphasis on individual responsibility, while Democrats praise it for bringing healthcare to those who have been priced out of the insurance market.

But perhaps the most encouraging thing about the bill is that it avoids a single-payer, Canadian/European healthcare model, and it also avoids enraging businesses. In short, it completely cuts down most of the arguments against universal healthcare. If over the years this model proves to be successful, who will honestly be able to say that we should allow poor people to go without medical coverage when it is affordable to provide it to them?

Bye!

2006-04-03T22:50:00.000-05:00

Tom Delay is out. With his poll numbers languishing and in serious legal jeopardy following several indictments, the former House Majority Leader is dropping his reelection campaign and planning to leave Congress in May.

Delay is also changing his legal residency to Virginia so that he will be ineligible for reelection to his seat in Texas. That will allow Texas Republicans to nominate someone else for the seat, the primary for the district having already been held.

Iraq

2006-04-02T14:14:00.000-05:00

The NY Times has a good editorial on the situation in Iraq:

The stories about innocent homeowners and storekeepers who are dragged from their screaming families and killed by those same militias are heartbreaking, as is the thought that the United States, in its hubris, helped bring all this to pass.

Joe with the Joes

2006-03-29T17:40:00.000-06:00

This Thursday from 11AM-1PM, we invite all WashU students to attend "Joe with the Joes" at Whispers Cafe. Joe Edwards, the owner of Blueberry Hill, Pin Up Bowl, and the Pageant, will be there along with Joe Adams, the mayor of University City. Drop by to ask the pair about U. City issues, to ask the mayor about local politics, or to ask Joe Edwards about how to succeed in business. You can also get more information about Mayor Adams from our website.

McCain and Falwell

2006-03-28T16:22:00.000-06:00

John McCain is certainly one of the most respectable Republicans in Washington, which makes me wonder why he will be delivering the Commencement message at Liberty University (founded by Jerry Falwell) in May. Last time I checked, principled moderate leaders do not cozy up to religious fanatics like Falwell, who has stated that "if you're not a born-again Christian, you're a failure as a human being" and that "most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home." georgia10 has some analysis on DailyKos.

Also, Bush's chief of staff, Andy Card, resigned today. No worries, though. There will be another inept slave to the ideology of tax cuts and social intolerance to take his place, Josh Bolten.

Finally, Kevin Drum has some musings on healthcare:

In the meantime, it occurs to me that there must be some natural experiments that could provide us with some data on this very legitimate question: does centralized control of healthcare spending reduce innovation? In the United States, Medicare funds healthcare for everyone over 65, so if single-payer healthcare really does stifle innovation, we should expect less innovation (and slower adoption of innovative technology) for new procedures and new drugs that are useful predominantly for older patients.

Brooks and Arab Democracy

2006-03-27T17:28:00.000-06:00

The people who run for president in 2008 will find themselves campaigning in a weary nation. They will also confront an old form of multiculturalism that has been given a new life. This is the multiculturalism that puts aside the universal claims of the Declaration of Independence, which Lincoln cherished. Instead, it says, democracy is good for many cultures, but not for Arabs. America has benefited from other immigrants, but not the current wave of Mexicans.

So says David Brooks in his most recent NY Times column. And while I certainly agree that second-class citizenship is an undesirable solution to the illegal immigration problem, Brooks' take on "Arab democracy" is, as per usual, completely ridiculous. By omitting other counterarguments, Brooks basically says that opponents of his neoconservative vision of "spreading democracy" oppose giving democracy to Arabs because Arab culture is incompatible with democracy. Never mind that there are numerous other arguments for why spreading democracy to a given country might not be prudent at a certain point in time (lack of viable institutions, probability of a civil war breaking out, increase in terrorism and anti-American sentiments); Brooks dishonestly brushes off arguments against spreading democracy as culturally superiorist and insensitive.

What I don't understand is why Brooks never bothers to differentiate spreading democracy with military force or with other means. It's one thing to say a whole culture is incompatible with democracy, which isn't what most critics of neoconservatism state. What critics of neoconservatism state is that viewing the world in a black-and-white, no-details-necessary manner inevitably lands you in a mess like Iraq. A country whose culture is bitterly divided between 2 conflicting religious factions and 2 conflicting ethnic factions, and a country with underdeveloped institutions, could be argued to be not ready for democracy. Plunging such a nation into war is a bad idea; encouraging the long-term development of societal attitudes and institutions, even if not particularly viable, is surely a better option in such a case. That's not cultural elitism. That's being smart.

More on the State Ban on Funding for Contraception

2006-03-26T21:18:00.000-06:00

WustlDemsLAD already posted an AP article on the Missouri ban on state funding for contraception and infertility treatments; here's another article on the topic that's a little more comprehensive from the KC Star.

If any of you are free this coming Tuesday and are interested in lobbying for a reinstatement of state funding for contraception and infertility treatments, the Missouri Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Planned Parenthood and NARAL will be lobbying and demonstrating in Jefferson City. Their slogan is "responsibility equals prevention" Hundreds of activists will be in attendance. Bus transportation will be provided from St. Louis to Jefferson City (though not from Wash U). Buses will leave Tuesday morning at 7:30 AM and will return by 5:00 PM. For information about bus locations and other details, please call (314) 531-8616.

Had enough?

2006-03-26T20:59:00.000-06:00

Apparently Newt Gingrich has gotten himself into the business of giving Dems advice, suggesting to Times magazine that the best campaign slogan for Democrats today could be no more than, "Had enough?" TPMCafe's Tom Wright has comments on the Gingrich strategy here. MyDD has an excellent post on Feingold and the value of real progressive leadership, while TPMC's Chris Thomas examines HBO's new series Big Love and the economics of polygamy. Also, Kevin Drum wonders about chemical plant security and why Republicans in Congress think mandating it is an unnecessary violation of private enterprise.

But of course, the big issue on everyone's minds right now is immigration reform. I, for one, welcome the Republicans' decision to remind the American public that they are the party of choice of ethnic bigots like Tom Tancredo, who supports the outlawing of helping illegal immigrants in any way, including giving them meals or administering first aid to them. Kevin Drum ponders a guest worker program versus traditional immigration models, while Orcinus provides an extremely comprehensive (though typically long) post on the issue.