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.

Blunt Salutations

2006-03-22T15:26:00.000-06:00

Congratulations to Governor Blunt whose approval rating hit a 52-week high of 37%! Everyone give it up for the guv!

Missouri bans contraception in public health clinics

2006-03-21T13:54:00.000-06:00

Pre 9/11 worldview? Try pre-1960s worldview: the Missouri House has rejected allowing funding for contraception in public health clinics. Why? Providing contraceptives promotes "promiscuous lifestyles." The law will primarily affect women who are too poor to afford health insurance and who are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid. And how do we know the bill specifically focuses on women? Examine the rhetoric of the Republic legislators:

"If you hand out contraception to single women, we're saying promiscuity is OK as a state, and I am not in support of that," Phillips, R-Kansas City, said in an interview.

So basically, the Missouri House thinks that single women are too impressionable to be left alone with the decision of whether or not to use contraceptives. In fact, young women cannot even be in the presence of contraceptives, because they will be lured toward a promiscuous lifestyle. After all, we can't trust adults to make decisions about their own sex lives; that's the State's job!

The deficit

2006-03-21T13:42:00.000-06:00

The New York Times is right on the money on the discrepancy between what Republicans are saying and what they are doing about the deficit:

If leading Republicans were serious about the deficit, here's what they'd be saying:
Let the tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2008 and 2010 unless the budget improves significantly before then. Republicans want voters to believe that the deficit is the result of spending increases alone — not tax cuts. That's false. The swing from a $236 billion budget surplus in 2000 to a $371 billion deficit today is a huge deterioration in the nation's fiscal balance, equal to 5.3 percent of the economy. Of that, fully 62 percent is due to lower tax revenues.

I also agree with the Times' assessment that when Republicans actually do offer to curb spending, it is usually through cutting programs that benefit more people than tax cuts do, like healthcare, education, and infrastructure programs. It seems to me that the majority of Republicans truly believe that tax cuts are worth more than a balanced budget and social programs. As the Times editorial states, even the relatively fiscally smart ones are still slaves to this ideology. But make no mistake about it: sooner or later, the deficit must be reduced.

Welcome back

2006-03-19T22:37:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone had an enjoyable Spring Break...now get back to work, you lazy bums! Just kidding of course, but I will be getting back to work (read: starting to blog again) within the next day or so.

There will be a Pizza and Politics meeting tomorrow at 9:30PM in the Barry Room, and we hope to see you all there.

Also, on Tuesday, March 21st there will be a fundraiser reception for Missouri state senate candidate (and University College professor) Jeff Smith at The Cedars (939 Lebanon Dr, St. Louis, MO 63104 for you Mapquesters/Google Earthers out there). Student tickets are only $5, and Francis R. Slay Sr. will be there. We encourage any interested students to attend.

And just so everyone's on the same page, that's not an endorsement of Smith's candidacy.

Christian Resolution Put to Rest!

2006-03-12T01:35:00.000-06:00

HCR13, the Missouri "Christian resolution," has been put to rest! Though the resolution would have done absolutely nothing in the way of policy, its defeat is a victory of intelligence over ignorance, especially considering that Republicans and Christians form majorities in the Missouri state legislature. Now conservative groups can't religion-bait by using this bill in attack ads or informational campaign literature.

Message from Deacon Larry Weber

2006-03-12T01:34:00.000-06:00

TO: Catholic Members of the Missouri House of Representatives

FROM: Deacon Larry Weber, Executive Director and General Counsel

RE: HCR 13 recognizing a "Christian God"

DATE: March 7, 2006

The declaration "I believe in one God" begins our Catholic Professionof Faith. This Profession of Faith forms the basis of the baptismalfaith we hold and profess as followers of Jesus Christ and as membersof the Catholic Church (Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph14, hereinafter Catechism).

As Catholics, we recognize the relationship we have with other peoplewho also profess faith in the same God. We recognize that three ofthe great religious traditions arise in Scripture from Abraham:Judaism, Christianity and Islam. Each of these religious traditionslook to Abraham, to whom God made his covenant and formed his peopleto whom he revealed his law, as their father in faith (Catechism 72). As Catholics, we recognize those of the Jewish faith as our ancestorsin faith, who were the first to hear the word of God (Catechism 839). The Jewish faith is a response to God's revelation in the OldTestament (id.). Likewise, as Catholics, we recognize those of Muslimfaith as followers of "the faith of Abraham, and together with us[those of the Catholic faith], they adore the one, merciful God"(Catechism 841).

The Second Vatican Council, in its declaration Nostra Aetate (October28, 1965), recognized the common belief in the one true God ofChristians and both the Jewish and Muslim peoples, recognizing withrespect to the latter that "The Church regards with esteem also theMoslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself;merciful and all- powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth, who hasspoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even Hisinscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islamtakes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God."

The Council also recognized the Jewish peoples' faith in God, stating"Thus the Church of Christ acknowledges that, according to God'ssaving design, the beginnings of her faith and her election are foundalready among the Patriarchs, Moses and the prophets. She professesthat all who believe in Christ – Abraham's sons according to faith –are included in the same Patriarch's call, and likewise that thesalvation of the Church is mysteriously foreshadowed by the chosenpeople's exodus from the land of bondage. The Church, therefore,cannot forget that she received the revelation of the Old Testamentthrough the people with whom God in His inexpressible mercy concludedthe Ancient Covenant."

At his Sunday blessing in St. Peter's Square on October 30, 2005, PopeBenedict XVI reaffirmed the teachings of Nostra Aetate, stating thatthe document was of "great relevance" today because it recognized that"all men constitute one community". "With the Nostra Aetatedeclaration, the fathers of Vatican II proposed some fundamentaltruths: They recalled with clarity the special link that connectsChristians and Jews, they repeated the esteem toward Muslims and thefollowers of other religions, and they confirmed the spirit ofuniversal fraternity that dispensed with all discrimination orreligious persecution," Pope Benedict said.

Unfortunately, the recognition of "a Christian God" found in HCR 13,pending on the House Calendar, is inconsistent with the basic tenet ofour Catholic faith that there is but one true God. As presented tothe floor of the House of Representatives for its consideration, itwould be difficult for a Catholic, in good conscience and inconsideration of the basic tenets of his or her faith, to be able toreconcile this recital contained in HCR 13 and offered as a basis forenactment of this resolution, with the most basic expression of ourCatholic belief in one God as stated by our Catholic Profession ofFaith.

Spring Break

2006-03-12T01:11:00.000-06:00

Enjoy your Spring Break, everyone!

Iraq v. Vietnam, South Dakota, and Universal Healthcare

2006-03-08T20:29:00.000-06:00

Over at Harvard's Nieman Watchdog retired Gen. William Odom asserts that Iraq is strikingly similar to Vietnam and is damaging our abilities to deal with anti-Western forces.

Universal healthcare should be something that is being honestly and frequently discussed in the American public discourse, especially considering that the current system is crumbling, but shamefully it is not. Luckily, progressive intellectuals are on the case. TPMCafe is a great source of posts on this issue: Leif Wellington Haase provides a broad overview of the many possible roads to universal healthcare coverage, Matt Yglesias wonders whether universal coverage can be combined with a private system, Mark Schmitt considers the electoral impediments to universal healthcare's success, and Nathan Newman blogs about recent healthcare reform in New York State.

And, as many of you may have heard, South Dakota's governor recently signed a bill banning almost all abortions in the state (which has one abortion clinic). Dakota legislators are hoping to force an eventual judicial decision overturning Roe v. Wade. However, Jack M. Balkin wonders if abortion could become a wedge issue for Republicans. I think this argument has some merit. Firstly, many moderate Republicans who do not particularly want to ban abortion or even oppose banning it vote Republican on the assumption that the pro-life movement is one gigantic pipe dream. If the pro-lifers succeed, or even come close to doing so, it could scare these moderates away from the Republican Party. Secondly, if Roe v. Wade were overturned, what would happen to the pro-life movement? All of those single-issue voters are now much less motivated to vote for one party; though they will almost certainly still vote overwhelmingly Republican, a certain portion of the group would almost definitely be shaved off of the voting bloc.

Maybe they'd even start worrying about life after birth and get on the universal healthcare bandwagon.

Remember, we are students

2006-03-08T00:58:00.000-06:00

Recently, our blog-website operation was attacked for allegedly endorsing by implication some candidates who are up for a school board election. Let me set some things straight. We will post campaign opportunities from any Democrat who makes them available to us as soon as is humanly possible. However, some comments are in order. First, College Democrats is not our full time job, or even our first priority; we are students first, so sometimes website updates get put off so that homework and studying can get done. Second, we do not communicate with each other as instantaneously as some might like, and sometimes it can take a day or two for things to move through the pipeline. Last week, our failure to email out all school board campaign opportunities received by us during the weekend was mainly due to slow communication amongst members of our group. We do our best to keep problems like this from occurring, but we are fallible after all. The campaign opportunity that was sent out in the weekly email was received well before the second opportunity was sent to us, and this opportunity was not sent to Akshay Iyengar, who handles the weekly email, or Ben Jackson (read: me), who writes the blog and runs the website. Hence, we were not informed of it until after the contentious email was sent out.

We hope that clears some things up. In the future, though, if anyone has any questions regarding "implicit endorsements," we would prefer if they would simply email us first. After all, good journalists investigate and research their stories before reporting them.

Full Text of House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

2006-03-05T22:23:00.000-06:00

Here is the full text of the resolution that would declare that Missouri is a "Christian-majority" state:

SECOND REGULAR SESSION
House Concurrent Resolution No. 13
93RD GENERAL ASSEMBLY

Whereas, our forefathers of this great nation of the United States recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation; and

Whereas, as citizens of this great nation, we the majority also wish to exercise our constitutional right to acknowledge our Creator and give thanks for the many gifts provided by Him; and

Whereas, as elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object; and

Whereas, we wish to continue the wisdom imparted in the Constitution of the United States of America by the founding fathers; and

Whereas, we as elected officials recognize that a Greater Power exists above and beyond the institutions of mankind:

Now, therefore, be it resolved by the members of the House of Representatives of the Ninety-third General Assembly, Second Regular Session, the Senate concurring therein, that we stand with the majority of our constituents and exercise the common sense that voluntary prayer in public schools and religious displays on public property are not a coalition of church and state, but rather the justified recognition of the positive role that Christianity has played in this great nation of ours, the United States of America.

More on the Missouri "Christian" Resolution

2006-03-05T01:12:00.000-06:00

The Post-Dispatch has a good, thorough article on the debate over the proposed resolution recognizing Missouri as a "Christian-majority" state. We should note that the item being proposed is a resolution, not a bill. If passed, the resolution would not be law - it is simply an affirmation of what a majority of the state legislature believes; a declaration, if you will.

According to the Post-Dispatch,

The proposed resolution states that the country's forefathers "recognized a Christian God and used the principles afforded to us by Him as the founding principles of our nation. ... As elected officials we should protect the majority's right to express their religious beliefs while showing respect for those who object."

The resolution also states that "voluntary prayer in public schools, religious displays on public property, and the recognition of a Christian God are not a coalition of church and state."

Just who's backing this monstrosity?

It was recently approved by the House Rules Committee along party lines - five Republicans backed it, three Democrats did not - and could come for a vote before the full House next week. It would also have to pass in the Senate.

Happily, there is vocal opposition from many religious groups, including several Christian churches:

"It's an atrocity," said the Rev. Timothy L. Carson, senior minister at Webster Groves Christian Church. "Thomas Jefferson would be rolling in his grave. It's indicative of a movement within one segment of activist Christianity that wants to dominate the rest with their views."
The Rev. David M. Greenhaw, president of Eden Theological Seminary in St. Louis, said he found the resolution "offensive as a Christian. I don't want the state defining my Christianity."
Some non-Christians also reacted strongly. Batya Abramson-Goldstein, executive director of the Jewish Community Relations Council, said the fact that the resolution made it out of a committee was significant.
"It's not that this is one individual's opinion," she said. "Other legislators have voted on this already, so it takes on a legitimacy that makes it more than a resolution. It's painful for faith communities outside the Christian community."

The religious bill

2006-03-03T15:56:00.000-06:00

I'll have some more extensive comments on the bill later, but I'd just like to let people know that the bill does allow for minorities to "object" to the majority's belief. But as a quick note, since when is it necessary to protect a majority's religious belief (if the government abuses them they just elect it out of office), and why is the bill worded so that the rights of the majority come before that of the minority? A legislature truly concerned about freedom of religion would be much more concerned about protecting the rights of minorities to believe whatever they want to, not just to "object" to the majority's belief. I guess the question becomes, in what way are the religious beliefs of Christians in Missouri threatened, especially when they make up over 90% of the population?

How to Elect the President Through a Popular Vote... WITHOUT Amending the Constitution

2006-03-03T15:51:00.000-06:00

Former Indiana Sen. Birch Bayh (father of current Indiana Senator and probable '08 presidential candidate Evan Bayh), is leading a new effort to establish a national popular vote for the presidency and vice-presidency.

As a Senator, from 1963 to 1981 (when he was defeated by Dan Quayle), Birch Bayh was one of the Senate's leading liberals and was a principle architect of the 25th Amendment and a major leader in the effort to grant the vote to young persons between the ages of 18 and 21, an effort that eventually led to the 26th Amendment. Bayh was also the Senate's leading advocate of abolishing the Electoral College. Under his efforts, the Electoral College was very nearly abolished in 1969, when a constitutional amendment to institute a popular vote passed the House and had the support of 3/4 of the state legislatures.

Since that time, efforts to institute a national popular vote have been sporadic and unsuccessful. Although several small states supported the 1969 effort, most are generally opposed today, making passage in Congress and ratification in the states a very daunting prospect.

So re-enter Birch Bayh, who is now leading a "bayh-partisan" (hehe!) group of elder statesmen in a bid to institute a national popular vote without abolishing the electoral college which calls itself the National Popular Vote campaign. Under the Constitution, the states are free to allocate their electoral votes however they wish. All but two (Nebraska and Maine) award electoral votes on a winner-takes-all basis. Nothing stops the states, however, from awarding electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote.

Under this plan, states will individually pass legislation pledging to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. The legislation will only go into effect, however, when the states having ratified such legislation control a majority of the electoral college (270+ votes). That way, a majority of the electors in the electoral college will be casting their votes for the winner of the national popular vote.

Bayh yesterday authored a diary on the topic on DailyKos:

Today more than ever, the system we use is a disservice to the voters. With the number of battleground states steadily shrinking, we see candidates and their campaigns focused on fewer and fewer states. While running for the nation's highest office, candidates in 2004 completely ignored three-quarters of the states, including California, Texas and New York, our three most populous states. Why should our national leaders be elected by only reaching out to 1/4 of our states? It seems inherently illogical, and it is.

In recent history, we all remember the 2000 election which awarded the Presidency to the candidate who came in second in the popular vote. That's water under the bridge. But there are few who realize in 2004 President Bush's 3.5 million vote lead over Senator Kerry could have been trumped with a change of less than 60,000 votes in Ohio. With Ohio in the Kerry column the current system and would have elected him President. But our proposal isn't about elections. It's about the future of our democracy.

In the final analysis, to me the most compelling reason for directly electing our president and vice president is one of principle. In the United States every vote must count equally. One person, one vote is more than a clever phrase, it's the cornerstone of justice and equality. We can and must see that our electoral system awards victory to the candidates chosen by the most voters.

The group's

website has a more thorough description and also includes answers to several FAQ's. The effort is also the subject of an article by Hendrik Hertzberg in the New Yorker and an favorable editorial from the Chicago Sun-Times.

Of course, the odds against this measure succeeding are pretty long. But it's an interesting effort nevertheless and maybe if some states DO pass the measure, it'll acquire some momentum.

Bill Would Declare Missouri a "Christian State"

2006-03-03T15:28:00.000-06:00

How wonderful:

Missouri legislators in Jefferson City considered a bill that would name
Christianity the state's official "majority" religion.

House Concurrent Resolution 13 has is pending in the
state legislature...

Karen Aroesty of the Anti-defamation league, along with other
watch-groups, began a letter writing and email campaign to stop the resolution.

The resolution would recognize "a Christian god," and it would not
protect minority religions, but "protect the majority's right to express their
religious beliefs.

The resolution also recognizes that, "a greater power exists," and only
Christianity receives what the resolution calls, "justified recognition."

State representative David Sater of Cassville in southwestern Missouri,
sponsored the resolution, but he has refused to talk about it on camera or over
the phone.

Now, as Joshua Holland notes on Alternet (at the above link), this is far too nutty even to get passed in the Missouri state legislature. But, as Holland notes,

... people who write bills like this aren't trying to make law. Their intent is to further the right's narrative that Christians are a persecuted minority under siege. They want to guarantee that
the good folks at the Anti-defamation league, the ACLU and Americans United fight to have their silly legislation overturned, proving that those civil rights groups have an anti-Christian agenda (and perhaps even a direct association with Satan). And bills like this -- you couldn't write a piece of legislation that more obviously violates the Establishment Clause --are meant to give those
groups a victory in court, thereby proving the existence of out-of-control activist judges dedicated to stymieing the popular will of the Christian majority.

This just goes to show how out-of-the-mainstream the Republicans in Jefferson City are.

Pants on fire

2006-03-02T21:54:00.000-06:00

Nobody knew the levees would break? You were caught off guard, Mr. President? Beeee. Essssss. Crooks and Liars has the video of Michael Brown telling Bush that "the big one" is coming and Bush saying that he's "fully prepared." Fully prepared as in not sending relief or pretty much preparing in any significant way. Oh, and they told him levees could be breached.

Conservative intellectual George F. Will has come out and stated that all three components of the "Axis of Evil" are more dangerous today than before the war in Iraq. We'll have further coverage of why George F. Will hates America in the coming days.

And last but not least, the NY Times' Opinionator gives us an excellent overview of Zogby's recent and controversial poll of troops in Iraq.

Regime change

2006-03-01T17:57:00.000-06:00

Ever wonder how Bush can reconcile his support for autocratic and repressive Gulf states with his call for freedom in the Middle East? Kevin Drum thinks that you can support both democracy and autocratic regimes in the Middle East, because as he says,

There are no democracies in the Middle East outside Israel, after all. This means that if we want to engage with the Muslim world, instead of simply bombing and invading it, we're going to have to engage with some fairly disagreeable regimes.

Matt Yglesias provides an excellent retort at TPMCafe, stating, among other things,

The United States sells large quantities of advanced military equipment to [the Gulf states] and encourages them to look to us as their main supplier. In the wake of the first Gulf War, we've been offering them implicit defense guarantees. Our intelligence and law enforcement services work hand-in-glove with their domestic security forces. When the President talks about the need for political reform in the Middle East he invariably employs a double-standard, saving all his harsh words for Syria and Iran while offering kind ones for the various Gulf states. All this comes in the context of the fact that the states' boundaries are products of earlier western imperalism and the ruling families almost invariably owe their thrones to the former colonial powers.

Read the rest of the post (it's not very long) for some more interesting commentary.

Obama event full

2006-02-28T16:47:00.000-06:00

Unfortunately, the Obama event on Friday has filled up. If anyone wanted to go but couldn't get back to us in time for whatever reason, shoot us an email via www.washudems.org and we'll put you on the priority list for our next big ticket-only event.

Obama tix $25; Robin Carnahan; Stem Cells; Blunt's Low Grade

2006-02-28T00:19:00.000-06:00

Tickets to go see Barack Obama in St. Louis on Friday are now $25! We have a very limited number of seats available, so email Aaron Keyak right away if you would like to go.

Our thoughts and prayers go out tonight to Missouri Secretary of State Robin Carnahan, who yesterday announced that she has breast cancer. With any luck, she will win the fight against this disease.

St. Louis Mayor Francis Slay has come out in favor of the pro-stem cell initiative. Slay stated,

The ballot measure is a modest one. Far from breaking any new ground, it simply asks that the state of Missouri not make its statutes regulating stem cell research more stringent than the federal laws on the same subject. Adopting more restrictive laws, argues the bi-partisan coalition, would put the state at an economic disadvantage – and would kill the important life science research of university centers in St. Louis and Kansas City.

Also, the NEA gave Gov. Blunt a "D" on his education policies. Ironically, the reason for the grade was, and I kid you not, Blunt's "65% Plan."

Bill to Ban Republican Adoption

2006-02-27T01:09:00.000-06:00

Ohio State Senator Robert Hagen has introduced a bill to ban Republicans from adopting children. The bill states:

"[C]redible research'' shows that adopted children raised in Republican households are more at risk for developing ``emotional problems, social stigmas, inflated egos, and alarming lack of tolerance for others they deem different than themselves and an air of overconfidence to mask their insecurities.''

Maybe he went a little over the top, but the bill still has an interesting message; Nathan Newman at TPMCafe provides some interesting commentary:

Hagan admits that he has no scientific evidence to support the above claims, but then he notes, neither do those who argue gays are a threat as parents.

Hagen's bill is tongue-in-cheek, but more seriously, the reality is that 20,000 children each year go into the foster care system who will never get adopted, 20,000 children desperate for a home but who will reach adulthood with no one EVER adopting them.

With so much need to recruit more adoptive parents, it's a bit crazy (and cruel) that any loving parents, whatever their political party or sexual orientation, would be barred from adopting.

Fair and balanced (TM)

2006-02-24T18:16:00.000-06:00

Ummm...I believe the correct answer is no.

Civil war in Iraq?, plus Obama visits St. Louis

2006-02-24T16:30:00.000-06:00

Iraq has endured a wave of sectarian violence over the past two days because of the bombing of one of the most sacred sites in Shiite Islam, and I would have to say the outlook is not good for preventing civil war over there (though hopefully there will be none). This just goes to show what happens when you view the world in a Manichaean, black-and-white way, and you avoid all of those pesky details such as whether or not Sunnis or Shias would rip each other and Iraq apart in the event that Iraq's stabilizing institutions fell apart. Remember, this was a war by choice; Saddam may have been a brutal dictator, but he did not have extensive ties to terrorists or Osama bin Laden. It is becoming increasingly clear that the war in Iraq is making the US less safe (by increasing Muslim discontent with the US, by turning Iraq into a training ground for insurgents, and by creating a situation in which Iraq can be ruled by theocrats) and destablizing the region. Many Democrats foolishly went along with this war, but have no doubts that this war is Republican in nature; at the heart of the matter, this is the Bush administration's fault, plain and simple. Critics say, what could be worse than Saddam? My answer is, a civil war that kills millions and makes Muslims hate us even more.

On a more uplifting note, Barack Obama will be visiting St. Louis next Friday to headline a fundraiser for Claire McCaskill's U.S. Senate bid against incumbent (and Republican) Jim Talent. But what's even better is that student tickets are $50. Contact Aaron Keyak for more information if you would like to attend.

Also, please see our website for more information on the protest of Exodus International this weekend in St. Louis.

Talent's troubles, Missouri news, and some random blog links

2006-02-20T19:45:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone had a pleasant weekend...I got to see a sizable swath of the state on my travels to and from Springfield, or at least as much of the state as I could see blasting by at 100MPH.

Everyone grab a hanky for Senator Jim Talent since he's been having a rough ride lately. His main fundraiser is apparently tied to Jack Abramoff and his stances on embryonic research might cost him re-election. With any luck we'll be able to bid sayonara to the sucker come November.

Gov. Blunt wins the award for this week's most ironic press release, for his masterpiece "Healthcare for All Missourians." Check it out:

Having access to quality and affordable healthcare is important for all Missourians, and together we must ensure this need is addressed.

Blunt's method of accomplishing this? Massive Medicaid cuts leaving 100,000 Missourians without healthcare. Amazing.

Also, State House Minority Leader Jeff Harris issued a press rlease on Monday proposing that all Missourians be allowed to deduct their college-tuition payments from their state income tax payments. So while Blunt is busy trying to sell MOHELA to Fannie Mae, Dems are working to actually save people money. While it was a little troubling to me that Harris didn't bother to calculate the cost of the program, this first step is encouraging to say the least.

And for some national politics fun, Chris Bowers of MyDD writes about election strategies for November, while Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo ponders the irony of Harry Whittington apologizing to the Vice President for being shot in the face by him, and discusses what this reveals about Cheney's Vice Presidency. Orcinus provides us with a very good but perhaps overlong analysis of Ann Coulter's ethnically insensitive remarks at the Conservative Political Action Committee Conference. As Orcinus writes:

Let's face it, Coulter has been spewing hate -- ethnic and otherwise -- for a
long time under the guise of "political humor." In terms of poisoning the public
discourse, just how much worse is an ethnic slur than calling for us to invade
Muslim nations and forcing them to convert to Christianity? Or, for that matter,
wishing for the bombing of the New York Times Building? Calling liberals
innately "treasonous," and calling for their oppression? Disenfranchising women?
Extolling the benefits of "local fascism"? Fantasizing about shooting the
president?

Indeed. More to come sometime soon. In the meantime check out www.washudems.org for new volunteer and campaign opportunities.

Talent Flip-Flops; GOP Base Split

2006-02-20T19:33:00.000-06:00

In the past couple of weeks, Sen. Jim Talent has dropped his support for the Senate bill banning all forms of cloning and embryonic stem cell research. The bill, which we blogged about a few days back, would criminalize embryonic stem cell research and slap ten years' jail time on offending scientists.

Besides dropping his support for the aforementioned bill, Talent is also sponsoring a measure promoting an "alternative" to embryonic stem cell research called altered nuclear transfer. From the Kansas City Star...

Sen. Jim Talent attempted an election-year pirouette Friday on stem-cell research, an issue that has split the Missouri Republican Party.
Talent withdrew his four-year support of federal legislation that would ban human cloning, including what opponents call embryonic therapeutic cloning that most researchers see as key to early stem-cell study. Talent’s pro-life supporters adamantly oppose the technique.

In making his position change, the Missouri Republican sought to satisfy the pro-life camp by promoting a type of stem-cell research that “signals the end of ethical dilemmas in this type of research.”

Alterned nuclear transfer does hold some promise and should be encouraged. But there is no guarantee that it will work and trying to promote it as an alternative to stem cell research could close down more promising avenues of research. The Post-Dispatch quotes Wash U. prof Steven Teitelbaum:

Steven Teitelbaum, a professor of pathology at Washington University, is among [the skeptics]. "Is our goal to complicate the science and delay the possible use of the science? Or should we be moving forward as rapidly and efficaciously as we can?" he asked. "What this involves is a politicization of science."

Teitelbaum is also quoted in the Kansas City Star article, along with William Neaves of the Stowers Institute in Kansas City, another major center for medical research in the state.

No researchers at Kansas City’s Stowers Institute or St. Louis’ Washington University currently do altered nuclear transfer research, said scientists at the state’s two leading bioresearch centers.

“All federally allowed research with stem cells should proceed,” said William Neaves, president of the Stowers Institute. “At this time, it’s not possible to know which type of research would hold the most promise.”

And it doesn’t make sense at this time to tilt the playing field in favor of one type of research, especially for altered nuclear transfer, for which “there is no evidence this will work in people,” said Steven Teitelbaum, a researcher at Washington University who uses stem cells in his research.

Perhaps taken alone, Talent's support for alterned nuclear transfer could be uncontroversial. But promoting it while simultaneously seeking to ban more promising techniques is nearly as misguided as banning embryonic stem cell research alone. And Talent has made the sloppy political move of declaring that he still supports the goals of the anti-science legislation that criminalizes embryonic stem cell research. In that context, removing his name from the bill reeks of political opportunism. And if stem-cell-research advocates are rolling their eyes, the Religious Right is livid.

... many in the pro-life movement view altered nuclear transfer as no more acceptable than the research they condemn as cloning. That is because the research still involves creating a blastocyst — a ball of cells — and crippling it in the petri dish to prevent it from growing into a human embryo.

“We have concerns about the intentional creation of what may be developmentally disabled human ‘embryos’ for the sole purpose of destroying them to harvest their stem cells,” wrote Carrie Gordon Earll of Focus on the Family, a leading conservative group.
...
“There’s been a lot of support for Jim Talent from the pro-life community,” said Larry Weber, executive director of the Missouri Catholic Conference. “Today he stepped off that platform. At this point, it’s essentially vacant with respect to the U.S. Senate election. His candidacy gave pro-life voters something they could gravitate towards. Unfortunately, it’s just not there any more.”

The controversy has been strong enough that even the national press has taken notice. Newsweek's Eleanor Clift wrote about the issue in an online column, published on 2/17.

The intersection between religion, science and public policy is a treacherous place for politicians. Those who alter their views in response to changing public mores will either reap the reward or pay the price. We’ll know in November whether Missouri Sen. Jim Talent made a smart move or committed political suicide when he went to the Senate floor last Friday to withdraw his name as cosponsor of an anticloning bill that would outlaw a promising form of embryonic stem-cell research.

Talent cited new science that would alter the genetic material of an embryo to prevent it from developing into a human being. A “developmentally disabled” embryo should in theory address the moral qualms of critics who view even an unfertilized egg in a petri dish as a potential person. But the reaction to Talent’s shift was blistering. Pro-life conservatives felt they’d been betrayed and threatened to abandon him at the polls, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which helped write the Senate bill, rejected Talent’s rationale that there is “an ethically untroubling way” of getting embryonic stem cells.

...

One of the experts Talent consulted with is William Neaves, president and CEO of the Stowers Institute, a biomedical research facility in Kansas City. Neaves does not advocate altered nuclear transfer, but he welcomes Talent’s support, however conditional, for continued research. The senator stopped short of endorsing the proposed ballot measure, explaining he would cross that bridge once the required signatures were gathered. Neaves told NEWSWEEK he was “very confident” a constitutional amendment allowing stem-cell research would be on the ballot, and that it would pass. A bipartisan coalition to support the amendment is co-chaired by former Republican senator Jack Danforth, an ordained Episcopal priest, who is appearing in public-interest television ads to make the moral and religious case for the research.

Neaves is a scientist by training, but he is also well-grounded in religion and has studied the philosophical and moral implications of the research he is promoting. He points out there is no religious consensus on when life begins. Judaism believes a new person comes into existence gradually. Islam believes that until an embryo is implanted in a uterus, there is no possibility of a person. In Buddhism, Neaves says, whatever happens in a petri dish is irrelevant. Christianity has varying positions with the most dogmatic one equating early cells with a human being reflected by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. “Yet a great majority of Americans regardless of religious tradition do not believe that cells in a petri dish are a person,” says Neaves, adding, “Nor do I. If I felt that was a person, I wouldn’t advocate research on that either.”

We encourage ALL Wash U. students who favor allowing embryonic stem cell research to vote for Claire McCaskill AND to vote "yes" on the expected ballot measure. And if you know someone uncommitted on whether to vote for McCaskill or Talent, direct them to the articles posted here. Claire McCaskill's going to need every vote she can get and the Senate Democrats are going to need every vote they can get. Let's not lose this one; November's not such a long time away.

Traveling

2006-02-17T02:03:00.000-06:00

I'll be away in Springfield (MO) for the weekend, so I'll be leaving control of the blog to Akshay (WustldemsPR) until Sunday night. That, of course, means my big weekend update will actually be on either Sunday or Monday this week. Anyway, have a great weekend and check out our website for information on new campaign manager position availabilities.

Great Daily Show Clips

2006-02-15T01:32:00.000-06:00

I guarantee that you'll be on the floor laughing over these Daily Show clips about the Cheney hunting fiasco and the Olympics Opening Ceremony. What, you say? What's so funny about the Olympics Opening Ceremony? Aside from the ridiculous avant-garde theatrical performances, the teams apparently marched into the stadium to a random collection of 70's and 80's American dance hits. Denmark, and this is absolutely true, marched in to "Please Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood," and Iran's theme was "Funky Town." Click on "#2 With a Bullett" and "Five Ring Circus" here.

McCaskill, corruption, #2 with a bullet, and miscellaneous things

2006-02-13T23:09:00.000-06:00

The latest Rasmusseun poll showed McCaskill and Talent in a dead heat, with Talent up 46 to McCaskill's 41 with a +/- 4.5 percentage points margin of error, showing some slippage for McCaskill. Nevertheless, it's becoming increasingly clear that the race is indeed going to be a close one.

Over at MyDD, Simon Rosenberg writes about corruption in Congress, while Talking Points Memo summarizes a barrage of emails from hunters about the Cheney incident. For those of you unfamiliar with what happened, allow me to explain: Vice President Cheney, while on a trip to Texas to hunt penned wingless quail, became the first Vice President since Aaron Burr to shoot someone, specifically his friend Harry Whittington. We'll have some hilarious Daily Show videos to post on the subject tomorrow.

Over at TPMCafe, Nathan Newman muses on Illinois' recent progressive reforms, including a new healthcare program for children, the expansion of gay rights, and corporate whistleblower legislation. A far cry from Missouri as of late, don't you think?

Also at TPMCafe, Ohio senatorial candidate and Iraq veteran Paul Hackett writes about Iraq and his belief in bringing the troops home. While I can't say I agree, he does make some good points:

Lets get real about the War on Terror. It was never in Iraq until we allowed it to be there, by not securing the borders. Saddam was a secular dictator, a horrible man, but not a religious fanatic and not a friend of Osama Bin Laden. In fact they were bitter enemies. Bin Laden even offered the service of his mujahedeen army in the removal of Iraq from occupied Kuwait in 1990, before the U.S. stepped in. The Iraq conflict had nothing to do with the War on Terror. It was a diversion from pursuing the real enemy, Al-Qaeda. We need to stop wasting the valuable resources of our military and reengage in a full-scale pursuit of Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda. I personally have looked terrorism in the eye and vanquished it. If the President and Karl Rove want to question my patriotism, I say "bring it on."

And in other news, Ann Coulter delivered some lovely remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference the other day:

Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and the NY Times have made submissions.

She also stated,

I think our motto should be post-9-11, 'raghead talks tough, raghead faces consequences.

Intelligent discourse at its best. Why say "terrorist" when you can use a term traditionally used as a derogatory ethnic slur? Really remarkable.

Vice President Cheney Accidently Shoots a Guy

2006-02-12T16:43:00.000-06:00

So, uh, Cheney apparently shot a guy.

P.S. Remarkably and perhaps prophetically, Howard Dean called Cheney "Aaron Burr" this morning for completely different reasons.

Gold!

2006-02-11T12:57:00.000-06:00

U.S.A! U.S.A!

MO Dems Win 2 out of 3 Special Elections! (Oh, and Jim Talent Wants to Send Wash U. Scientists to Jail)

2006-02-08T16:56:00.000-06:00

Many Wash U. and St. Louis-area college students volunteered for the victorious Jane Bogetto campaign in the 94th District last fall. Bogetto's 58-42 victory was seen as evidence of a Democratic wind blowing this way since the 94th hadn't elected a Democrat in decades.

Observers who called Bogetto's victory a fluke will now have to explain how, exactly, that same fluke repeats itself three more times; on Tuesday, Missouri Democrats won two out of three special elections for the Missouri State House of Representatives:

Democrat Michael Frame won in the 105th District, which takes in parts of Jefferson, Franklin and St. Louis counties. Frame, 44, an official with Local 1 of the Service Employees International Union, defeated Republican Ed Groom, a commercial carpenter, and Libertarian Richard Ford, who runs a bait shop.

Republican Dwight Scharnhorst won a bitterly contested race in the 93rd District in southwest St. Louis County. Scharnhorst, 58, who runs a photography studio in Eureka, defeated Democrat Genevieve Frank, a lawyer.

Both victories were narrow but otherwise reflected the leanings of both the 105th and the 93rd.

That wasn't the case in southwest Missouri, where both parties were caught off guard by the strong showing of Democrat Charles Dake, a livestock veterinarian from Miller, Mo., who captured almost 56 percent of the vote against Republican Eric Seifried, an insurance agent who had been the favorite.

All three races were great news for Democrats and bode well for the future. The website of the Missouri Democratic Party has this to say:

Missouri voters overwhelmingly took out their frustration with Matt Blunt and the Republicans at the polls. Democrats won two out of three special elections even though President Bush handily carried all three districts in 2004.

In a stunning victory, Charlie Dake won one of the most conservative districts inrural Southwest Missouri, the 132nd in Lawrence County. To put things in perspective, John Kerry only received 28.5% of the vote in 2004, and Matt Blunt got OVER 71%. This district is right in Matt Blunt’s backyard, and it just goes to show that the people that know Matt Blunt the most, voted for the
Republicans the least.

Michael Frame also captured victory in the 105th district in Jefferson and Franklin counties. This district has been a bell-weather for Missouri with Bush taking it last year with 52%. We are excited that Michael was able to keep this seat in Democratic hands.

Frustration with Matt Blunt was also prevalent in St. Louis County where Gen Frank received 48% of the vote in an area where Matt Blunt carried with 56%. George Bush also got over 59% of the vote, and only a strong candidate like Gen and the continuing backlash against Republicans in power made this possible. This conservative St. Louis County district is going the way of the rest of Missouri and will be an exciting place come November.

Kos features some analysis on the national implications of these races. Keeping in mind that Kos might not be quite an authority on Missouri politics, his analysis seems pretty sound. When Republicans are unable to carry a district that went 71% for Bush and when they win by only 200 votes in an district where Bush got 59%, those are signs that the Missouri electorate isn't exactly thrilled by Republican (mis-)administration.

In particular, these results bode well for Claire McCaskill in her campaign to oust Republican Sen. Jim Talent, a Wash U. alum. We noted below that several polls have McCaskill leading Talent at this early stage. This is still going to be a very tough race to win; Jim Talent has access to LOTS of money and Missouri is still a pale red, dare-I-say-it, "pink" state. But the political climate and Talent's own positions have given McCaskill a clear opening. And one of those key issues is stem-cell research.

As many here are aware, Wash U. is one of the leading institutes in the country for embryonic stem cell research. Yet, if Jim Talent has his way, scientists who do embryonic stem cell research ANYWHERE in the United States would face a one million dollar fine and up to ten years in prison. Luckily for Missouri, Claire McCaskill opposes such criminalization and has endorsed a ballot-measure to guarantee the legality of embryonic stem cell research in Missouri:

Saying that we need to promote hope for people with debilitating disease, not criminalizing the actions of those working to improve their quality of life, U.S. Senate candidate Claire McCaskill today announced her support for a Missouri ballot initiative that will guarantee the ability for research into lifesaving cures to take place in the state.

“We should be promoting hope for people suffering with Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, ALS, spinal cord injuries, and other debilitating diseases,” Claire said. “Stem cell research holds the promise of saving lives and alleviating the pain and suffering endured by so many of our people.
This initiative enables Missouri doctors and researches to be at the forefront of lifesaving research and it has my support.”

Lucky for McCaskill, polls show the Missouri body politic in favor of the initative by a 2 to 1 margin. Even better from a partisan point of view is how this issue has divided the State GOP. In fact, the Associated Press has an article on that very subject, right here.

We encourage ALL Wash U. students who support ECS-research to vote for McCaskill and to spread the world - not just Democrats, mind you, since we need the genuine support of independents and moderate Republican voters to win.

Budget busters

2006-02-07T19:34:00.000-06:00

I'm just going to cut to the chase: the federal budget plan put forth by President Bush on Monday is absolutely ridiculous. In a nutshell, the budget cuts a massive amount of funding for healthcare, education, and the environment in order to pay for Bush's ridiculously exorbitant tax cuts for the wealthy. Because why should those who can most afford to pay be forced to make sacrifices? Bush says the budget's focus is on national security, but let me bluntly say that all of his talk is pure, unadultered crap; it just shows how the Republican Party, under absolutely no circumstances, is willing to repeal tax cuts. As E.J. Dionne puts it, this is absolute lunacy. But not only that, the budget is dishonest, since it lies about a half-trillion dollars in costs that will likely be incurred in coming years. Check out this NY Times article for more information.

Meanwhile, in other news Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez recently testified before Congress to defend Bush's unwarranted domestic spying. Over at TPMCafe, Senator Russ Feingold explains why Democrats should oppose Gonzalez and Bush's efforts to erode our civil liberties.

And of course, who could forget about Missouri? For a basic summary of recent political news here, the AFL-CIO has endorsed Claire McCaskill in her campaign for the U.S. Senate, while State Attorney General Jay Nixon is suing the federal government over the Medicare Part D fiasco.

Muhammad cartoon riots

2006-02-05T17:31:00.000-06:00

If anyone out there is interested in hearing a Middle East expert speak about the Muhammad cartoon riots, check out Juan Cole's commentary over at Informed Comment. DailyKos' georgia10 provides an, er...more judgmental view of the situation.

SOTU Updates

2006-02-03T17:55:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone had the opportunity to watch or read Bush's State of the Union speech, which was, to say the least, less than inspiring. I would like to remind everyone that saying does not equal doing. Of course we have an addiction to oil; does that mean Bush is going to get tough on energy policy, that he will finally break free from the iron grip of Big Oil? I don't think so. Anyway, for some interesting stuff check out TPMCafe for commentary on the State of the Union's approach to Iran and isolationism. The Heartland Democrats also provide some reasons to be skeptical about the speech.

In other news, Alito was confirmed as an associate justice on the Supreme Court. No filibuster, nada. Interestingly enough, in his first decision on the court Alito sided with the liberal justices on a death penalty case. But let's not get our hopes up; he's probably just taking a short break from rolling back minority rights, women's rights, and workers' rights.

Also, Roy Blunt lost the race for Republican majority leader to John Boehner. Seems like Blunt might be a little too close to the corruption scandals for most House Republicans' tastes. Others speculate his heavy-handed tactics may have backfired on him.

And sadly, the budget cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, and child support enforcement all passed.

Clearly, we have some work to do.

Drinking game

2006-01-31T19:35:00.000-06:00

Note: The Washington University College Democrats does not condone underage drinking or binge drinking in any way shape or form.

Now that that's over with, click here for the 2006 State of the Union drinking game!

Updates, 1/30

2006-01-30T00:49:00.000-06:00

Hi, all. I just want to remind you all of the College Democrats' meeting tonight, Monday, 1/30 at 9:00 PM in the Barry Room. The room is located upstairs in Wohl and is accessible through the rear seating section of Center Court, near the entrance.

Among the topics we will be covering will be the upcoming US Senate race between incumbent Sen. Jim Talent (R) and State Auditor Claire McCaskill (D).

WustlDemsLAD pointed to an encouraging recent poll which has McCaskill beating Talent by 3 points, 47-44. This week, the American Prospect magazine has posted online an interesting article about the ramifications of this race:

Jim Talent is a well-liked incumbent, conservative senator with whiffs of moderation -- as well as a seasoned campaigner first elected to public office at 28. He is now 49.
Claire McCaskill, the state auditor and Democratic challenger, lost in a 2004 race for governor and, last month, requested privacy for herself and her kids after her ex-husband was murdered in Kansas City. She is going to have a tough time trying to win: Consider that Missouri has grown increasingly red since George W. Bush beat Gore by three points in 2000 after Democrats conceded the state to concentrate on Florida (ha!). In 2004, Kerry got stomped by seven points, 53 percent to 46 percent.
So what then is this rumble out of Missouri this week showing Talent and McCaskill in a statistical dead heat? The poll, which was done by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, (where I once drew a paycheck), puts McCaskill ahead of Talent by three points, 47 percent to 44 percent. That is not good news for the GOP -- even if there are ten months to Election Day.
For the GOP, losing Missouri would confirm the theory that Democrats, inside and outside of Washington, are busy cooking up using Jack Abramoff, Tom DeLay, and domestic spying to stir the brew.

Read the whole thing. It's short and encouraging.

Also, on an unrelated note, everyone's favorite Pennsylvania senator made this mind-numbingly stupid statement about "sacrifice":

And yet we have brave men and women who are willing to step forward because they know what's at stake. They're willing to sacrifice their lives for this great country. What I'm asking all of you tonight is not to put on a uniform. Put on a bumper sticker. Is it that much to ask? Is it that much to ask to step up and serve your country?

And, no, he isn't talking about a "Support the Troops" bumper sticker. He's apparently talking about a Rick Santorum bumper-sticker. Remarkable.

Why WashU Students Should Care About Missouri State Politics

2006-01-23T20:37:00.000-06:00

State politics isn't the most exciting or sexy brand of politics, but many people don't realize the effect that it has on their lives until it's too late. Approximately 10% of WashU's undergraduate student body is from Missouri, and numerous undergrads have probably gotten loans from the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, or MOHELA. Well, guess what. Gov. Blunt is in segret negotiations to sell MOHELA in a no-bid contract to Sallie Mae, a private for-profit company that will almost certainly make college more expensive to anyone currently receiving a MOHELA loan. If you or someone you know is going to be affected by this, send Gov. Blunt a message about how you feel.

Welcome back

2006-01-21T16:32:00.000-06:00

Welcome back everyone! True, it has been a relatively slow news week, but the blog world never sleeps! Over at DailyKos georgia10 has the real scoop on how the Bush administration is totally screwing up the war on terror and then lying about it, while MyDD's Scott Shields is dead on on how the media is playing right into Osama's hands. I mean honestly, people, do you really think he identifies with an American political party? He's a heartless killing monster, you lunatics!

Juan Cole has the scoop on the Iraqi parliament elections and predicts that "the Shiite religious coalition will certainly form the government for the next 4 years and will provide the prime minister." What's his rationale for this claim? The fact that the Shiite fundamentalist coalition won 128 of the seats in the Iraqi parliament (a party needs 138 for a majority). What better way to spread democracy in the Middle East than to empower a group of intolerant religious extremists! Wonderful job, George.

Speaking of unbridled success in the Middle East, Iran (you know, the country next to Iraq that actually had a significant and very real weapons of mass destruction program) is on its way to making nuclear weapons. No need to be concerned though...once freedom runs its course everything will be alright. But if you don't buy that argument, try Ivo Daalder's line of thinking on what we should do.

Oh, and in case you were wondering, yes, Missouri Senator Jim Talent is in favor of government spying on American citizens. But maybe that's okay because he's currently polling 3 points behind McCaskill.

Another brief hiatus

2006-01-11T16:35:00.000-06:00

As my laptop is currently in the shop, relegating me to the use of my households' barely-used old HP Pavilion, and since quite frankly nobody will be reading this blog until school starts up again, the blog will be going on a short hiatus until the spring semester begins. Enjoy the study-free days while they last!

What's up

2006-01-07T14:02:00.000-06:00

I hope everyone had an enjoyable holiday break. Much has happened since the last post; Sharon's strokes, the domestic spying controversy, the Sago mining tragedy, and the end of DeLay's run as House leader. Though much has also happened in the blog world, here are some recent highlights for you: MyDD's Matt Stoller ponders the Democratic platform for the upcoming elections, the folks at Gadflyer examine the relationship between democracy and economic freedom and tear into conservatives' hypocritical arguements about Abramoff and "big government," and Mona Eltahawy writes about intolerance in the Islamic world on the Kevin Sites blog.

Hiatus

2005-12-22T12:09:00.000-06:00

The blog will be going on a short hiatus for the holiday season. Merry Christmas, Happy Channukah, and Happy Holidays to all!

Do they know it's Christmas?

2005-12-22T02:04:00.000-06:00

The Senate may have saved ANWR from drilling, but its Republican leaders decided to leave lumps of coal in the stockings of disadvantaged Americans with its massive budget cuts. Oh, but the cuts were necessary to decrease the deficit, right? Wrong! Just wait 'til the New Year when the Republicans start pushing for tax breaks for the wealthy.

Science trumps theology in Pennsylvania

2005-12-21T02:54:00.000-06:00

A federal judge has ruled that it is unconstitutional to teach intelligent design in public schools, mainly because ID advances "a particular version of Christianity." DailyKos' georgia10 provides some good analysis of the case.

Dingell's Jingle

2005-12-21T02:21:00.000-06:00

Here's the poem Rep. John Dingell read on the floor of the House in response to House Resolution 579, which was designed to "protect" Christmas symbols from the supposed War on Christmas. You can view a video of the speech here.

‘Twas the week before Christmas and all through the House
No bills were passed ‘bout which Fox News could grouse;
Tax cuts for the wealthy were passed with great cheer,
So vacations in St. Barts soon would be near;

Katrina kids were nestled all snug in motel beds,
While visions of school and home danced in their heads;
In Iraq our soldiers needed supplies and a plan,
Plus nuclear weapons were being built in Iran;

Gas prices shot up, consumer confidence fell;
Americans feared we were on a fast track to…well…
Wait--- we need a distraction--- something divisive and wily;
A fabrication straight from the mouth of O’Reilly

We can pretend that Christmas is under attack
Hold a vote to save it--- then pat ourselves on the back;
Silent Night, First Noel, Away in the Manger
Wake up Congress, they’re in no danger!

This time of year we see Christmas every where we go,
From churches, to homes, to schools, and yes…even Costco;
What we have is an attempt to divide and destroy,
When this is the season to unite us with joy

At Christmas time we’re taught to unite,
We don’t need a made-up reason to fight
So on O’Reilly, on Hannity, on Coulter, and those right wing blogs;
You should just sit back, relax…have a few egg nogs!

‘Tis the holiday season: enjoy it a pinch
With all our real problems, do we honestly need another Grinch?
So to my friends and my colleagues I say with delight,
A merry Christmas to all,
and to Bill O’Reilly…Happy Holidays.

Hooray for the blog

2005-12-20T01:40:00.000-06:00

Here goes nothing! This is the official blog of the College Democrats of Washington University in St. Louis. The goal of this blog is to keep the Democratic community of Washington University updated and informed about news and politics. The blog will highlight the key developments in politics in D.C., Jefferson City, and St. Louis, and will link to exceptional articles from both major media publications and other blogs. The blog will also feature the numerous opportunities available for WashU students to get involved in politics. So without any further ado, let the blogging begin!

WUStL College Democrats

Updates

Bill Clinton Smacks Down Chris Wallace of Fox News

A Sham Compromise on Torture

McCaskill and Talent Debate

Voter ID Update

Bill Clinton on The Daily Show Tonight, 10 PM

Poll: McCaskill Leads by 3

McCaskill Gets the Rams on TV

The Missouri Senate Race: Why is it So Important?

RI-Sen: Primary Results

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

Bawk bawk bawk

Post-Franken, see Ann Coulter vs. Donna Brazille

Franken

Claire McCaskill Coming to Campus on Monday

Why Should I Vote for the Democrats?

Universal healthcare in MA

Bye!

Iraq

Joe with the Joes

McCain and Falwell

Brooks and Arab Democracy

More on the State Ban on Funding for Contraception

Had enough?

Blunt Salutations

Missouri bans contraception in public health clinics

The deficit

Welcome back

Christian Resolution Put to Rest!

Message from Deacon Larry Weber

Spring Break

Iraq v. Vietnam, South Dakota, and Universal Healthcare

More posting

Remember, we are students

Full Text of House Concurrent Resolution No. 13

More on the Missouri "Christian" Resolution

The religious bill

How to Elect the President Through a Popular Vote... WITHOUT Amending the Constitution

Bill Would Declare Missouri a "Christian State"

Pants on fire

Regime change

Obama event full

Obama tix $25; Robin Carnahan; Stem Cells; Blunt's Low Grade

Bill to Ban Republican Adoption

Fair and balanced (TM)

Civil war in Iraq?, plus Obama visits St. Louis

Talent's troubles, Missouri news, and some random blog links

Talent Flip-Flops; GOP Base Split

Traveling

Great Daily Show Clips

McCaskill, corruption, #2 with a bullet, and miscellaneous things

Vice President Cheney Accidently Shoots a Guy

Gold!

MO Dems Win 2 out of 3 Special Elections! (Oh, and Jim Talent Wants to Send Wash U. Scientists to Jail)

Budget busters

Muhammad cartoon riots

SOTU Updates

Drinking game

Updates, 1/30

Why WashU Students Should Care About Missouri State Politics

Welcome back

Another brief hiatus

What's up

Hiatus

Do they know it's Christmas?

Science trumps theology in Pennsylvania

Dingell's Jingle

Hooray for the blog