BC Patriot

Don't Spy on Me!

2006-09-07T17:57:00.000-04:00

The new Facebook option of seeing everything about everyone you know has ticked off a lot of people. I think I have gotten about 43 requests to join anti-new Facebook thing. So, in respect to the mass movement that is happening, I post this awesome picture and officially declare myself against the new changes.

Condemned!

2006-09-02T11:55:00.000-04:00

Dear loyal Patriot Blog readers,

Upon arrival at my off campus apartment yesterday, my roommates and I found the place in awful condition and, by chance, had it inspected by the Boston Inspectional Services Department. After the inspection, our apartment was actually condemned by the City of Boston due to how bad of a condition the landlord left it in. I wish I was kidding, but I'm not... Although we are laughing about it now, it actually sucks quite a bit considering we are now living in the basement of the apartment building until the proper renovations are done (supposedly by October 1). Why write this on the blog? Well, for one, some of you are my friends and I am sure would like to know about this. Second, we do not have internet just yet so the Patriot blog will be lagging unless I trek to the library (as I did today) to post. Worry not, however, because I am pretty sure the actual Patriot will be up and printing soon and the blog will no longer serve as our only source of information distribution to all of you.

Rage Against the Machine

2006-08-29T19:38:00.000-04:00

- Earlier this week, activist and frequent presidential candidate Ralph Nader entered a new fray: baseball. In a letter to New York Yankees owner George Steinbrenner in the New York Daily News, Nader attacked plans for the new Yankee Stadium which will host its first game on Opening Day 2009. I love the Yankees and I, um, like Ralph Nader too (cough) so I figured this was kind of a cool story.

- Joe Lieberman, in a move to save his failed/failing campaign for re-election as an Indy candidate in Connecticut, has released a bogus ad featuring a 29 second sunset so "Connecticut citizens could have a break from Ned Lamont's negative ads." Lamont has not run an ad since before the primary, first of all. Second, Lieberman had more negative ads than Lamont ever did. Ned Lamont also had the best campaign ad I've ever seen. The saga continues in CT....

- The President of Iran, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged President Bush to a live debate to discuss the problems of the world. This, of course, will never happen. But just imagine how awesome it would be if it did.

- In a fundraising email today for Congressman Ted Strickland, Democratic candidate for Governor in Ohio, Senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry stressed the importance of defeating Strickland's opponent, former Ohio Secretary of State Ken Blackwell, due to his efforts to "suppress" Democratic voters in 2004 in the battleground state he oversaw. This email marks the first time Senator Kerry has alledged any wrongdoing by the GOP during his campaign for President. And while he himself has not done so before, many other prominant Democrats have. Bobby Kennedy, Jr. famously wrote a great article in Rolling Stone covering his theories on voter fraud in 2004. Also, Rep. John Conyers (D-MI), the man who will be Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee when we take back Congress and the man who is George Bush's biggest nightmare, also released a report called "Preserving Democracy: What Went Wrong in Ohio." While there is no mainstream movement to unveil the truth about the possibility of this within Congress now, expect Conyers to open up a can of whoopass on this matter once he holds the reins of the Judiciary Committee. That and wiretapping. And the Downing Street Memo. Actually, the entire Bush Presidency. (If you want to go hog-wild on the writings of Congressman Conyers, check out his latest report, "The Constitution in Crisis.") *The headline picture is Conyers is from a June 2005 protest when he marched 500,000 people down to the White House and demanded to talk to Bush about the war. The nerd behind the White House gate is some low-level staffer and they never reached beyond the gate. Nevertheless, badass....

Should Have Gone to N.O.

2006-08-27T18:36:00.000-04:00

As we surround ourselves with news stories covering the 1st anniversary of Hurricane Katrina, I see it fitting to offer my opinion on something concerning the city of New Orleans. While the midterm elections are still acouple months away, people are already turning their attention to 2008 and the presidential election we will have that year. I mentioned earlier this week that TIME is already covering Hillary's presumed race. Everybody and their brother are going to New Hampshire and Iowa to test the waters. This is already happening. And so, I feel it is appropriate to cover the less sexy/less discussed issue of where to hold our convention that year. As it stands now, there are currently three cities still in contention: Denver, Minneapolis/St. Paul, and New York City. Last November, the DNC invited 35 cities to bid on holding the convention. In January, 11 cities responded and began the bidding process that means so much. Since then, all but three (the three above) have dropped out. And, much to my dismay, one of the cities to drop out was New Orleans.

Although it seems to many that the location of the party's national convention does not matter, it actually matters a great deal. For most Americans who do not have time to follow the earliest stages of a presidential campaign (from about now until the primaries early in that year, the primetime national convention is their first exposure to the candidates for the highest office in the land. In 2004, easily the most anticipated election of our lifetime, both parties sought to stake out cities in which their message could be delivered. For the President and his party, choosing New York City was a no-brainer for one reason: 9/11. Why would the party not want to have their convention in the city that is largely responsible for shaping their policy? As for the Democrats, they sought to evoke themes of patriotism and history as they met in historic Boston. The DNC was filled with American images of patriotism and entire sections of hallways dedicated to John Kerry's service to the country during Vietnam. Both conventions clearly had messages both in speeches and location and, as we head towards 2008, it is important that we as a party find our message when picking a convention spot. This is why I believed (and still believe) that New Orleans would be the best host to the 2008 Democratic National Convention. Just think: what city better illustrates the divisions and differences in the United States? What better city showcases the arrogance and failures of George W. Bush's domestic management? What better city could be the host to a new beginning to the Democratic Party - a party of renewed hope in this country, in each other, in our party and ideals, and in our government? What better convention hall could there be than the Louisiana Superdome, the place of refuge for thousands of abandoned citizens? The list goes on and on. So while the Republicans meet in Cleveland, Tampa, or New York City, we should be the party who is down in the city that requires the most help from the next administration and administrations to come as we attempt to rebuild that great city. But, as of now, this is not going to happen. As for the other cities, I am not sure what message we would be sending. Each city has hosted a convention in the past (Denver hosted the 1908 DNC, Minneapolis the 1892 RNC, and New York the 2004 RNC and 1868, 1924, 1976, 1980, and 1992 DNC's) and hope to do so again in the near future. I'm sure that all the finalist cities will offer something for our party but none of them hold a candle to what New Orleans could have symbolized for not only our party, but our nation. I'll keep my fingers crossed that they get back in the running, but in the meantime I should get my Colorado game face on...

Obama in Africa

2006-08-27T01:22:00.000-04:00

I think it is safe to say Senator Barack Obama is the most popular politician on the BC campus. After all, who didn't like the speech he gave on campus at last year's convocation? Nevertheless, while I think he is refreshing to the political scene, I am certainly not a member of the "Obama '08" Facebook club. In fact, after he rocked my world while I was sitting in the TD Banknorth Garden at the 2004 DNC during his maiden speech, I think he has kind of sold out and the idealism behind his being has dwindled. Maybe it's just me... I am still hopeful that time will tell. Regardless, I do give him points for his trip to Africa this week which is causing hoopla over there. And while his voting record in the Senate has not really inspired me, this article kind of did. Plus, I know everyone loves the guy so I figured I would throw it out as a crowd pleaser.

One Year Later...

2006-08-25T00:42:00.000-04:00

It has been a year since Katrina and Rita ripped apart the Gulf Coast. Words can't describe the loss; of homes, of communities, and of lives.

A small tribute to those who lost everything:

| View | Add Favorite

Dog Days

2006-08-24T23:49:00.000-04:00

I have been working some seriously long hours lately and have neglected to post on this blog in some time. However, I am moving back to Boston next Friday and the Patriot will be up and running shortly after school starts so I imagine.

Hillary Clinton is on the cover of TIME this week entitled "The Presidential Ambitions of Hillary Clinton" and features two boxes marked "Love Her" and "Hate Her." Although TIME's political coverage tends to not fall in line with what I'm feelin, I believe this article really does her presidential ambitions justice. She is the presumed front-runner but only because people have not realized how dangerous her candidacy could be to our party and are merely harking back to the golden days of 1993-2001 when Slick Willie was in the Oval Office. But Hillary is no Bill, and that is both a good and bad thing....

I will not go into a long post about why I think her candidacy is a terrible idea just yet (I will save that for later!), but I did want to post the link and at least get talking about this topic because it is coming right around the bend believe it or not. Most candidates claim that they will make up their minds following the midterm elections and before next spring.

Enjoy the article and I will see most of you back on campus in about a week!

(Side bar: GQ had a pretty cool interview with a presidential candidate I do approve of, Senator Russ Feingold. Check it out!)

What really happened on 9/11?

2006-08-13T14:51:00.000-04:00

When I was in high school, I took a class I'll never forget. And even though it was billed as a science class, it was really a class about the mysteries of the Earth. Our teacher, a cooky kind of guy, would show us tape after tape of conspiracy theory (we didnt land on the moon, aliens have come to Earth, etc.) and I can honestly say I never really believed any of them. So yesterday, when someone asked me if I had seen the documentary "Loose Change," a film about how 9/11 was a hoax, I shruged it off as just another crazy conspiracy theory. And then I watched it.... 9/11 is by far the most signifigant moment in history our nation has seen. My grandfather saw Pearl Harbor, my father saw the assasination of John Kennedy. I saw 9/11. And when I am older and have children of my own, I am more than certain that there will be at least one moment when they are doing their homework and ask me, "Daddy, what's 9/11?" Up until yesterday, I had a pretty clear idea of how I would answer that question. But since watching "Loose Change," I'm not really sure anymore. I am not going to attempt, in this post, to explain all the arguments that are presented in this movie. However, I am going to tell every single person I know to watch and think about this movie as we approach the fifth anniversary of that horrific event. Whether you believe it is true or not is up to your judgment. While I hesitate to say I completely believe what is discussed in the film, I will say that the documentary makes certain points that are impossible not to believe. However, I find it hard to believe that anyone within the government would publicly take this film seriously. For a candidate or a sitting member of Congress to speak in favor of this film would be career suicide. Nevertheless, I think it is very important that this documentary be given some attention by those in the opposition party of our government, perhaps by someone like Rep. John Conyers who seems to write a report a year about the coverups and scandals of this administration. Either way, citizens should watch this documentary and I urge all of you to watch it with friends and family and spread the word. We need to ask questions. And now that we have seen that the country is less security minded than they were two years ago, I believe now is the perfect time for some credible and powerful people to look into the points made in this film. But, in the mean time, check it out for yourselves.

Defeatocrats

2006-08-11T09:36:00.000-04:00

Several hours after Vice President Dick Cheney said Ned Lamont's victory in Connecticut would embolden "al Qaeda types," British and Pakistani officials arrested 24 men who were supposedly in the "final stages" of a plot in which they would have used liquid explosives to blow up as many as 10 jets in route to the US from Britain. Stuck in the mud for months over the war in Iraq, Republicans leaped on the oppurtunity to scare the American public and asking them whether the "Defeatocrats," according to the House Majority Leader John Boehner, could handle the challenges of terrorism.

But John, the American people got duped by that once already. Do you remember the rise in terror levels every time Democrats made gains in 2004? Do you remember the mantra of the Republican party ever since 9/11 - don't vote for Democrats because the country would be in danger? We've been down that road before and I don't think we're goin down it again in November.

The truth is this: the world has changed a lot since 9/11 and new challenges face the leaders of our country. No-matter who is in power, unless we cut ties with Israel and completely leave the Middle East, there will always be terror plots being plotted and broken up on a consistant basis. But who is to say the Democrats cannot prevent terror attacks and manage our security concerns just as well, if not better, than the Republican Party?

The one thing Democrats cannot and should not do in the wake of these terror arrests is back down. Ned Lamont won the primary here on Tuesday night because voters wanted change: the voters wanted to bring the troops home ASAP. The voters want universal healthcare. The voters want better education. The voters are sick and tired of the status quo. And, to prove this, they voted for a progressive Mr. Smith Goes To Washington-type Democrat who is now their nominee in November. The reason Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman have opened their mouths to scare people because they are actually afraid of him. His grassroots scare them. His netroots scare him. His victory really scares them, and it does so because it signals a change.

Senator Harry Reid, the Democratic Minority Leader, said yesterday that "this latest plot demonstrates the need for the Bush Administration and the Congress to change course in Iraq and ensure that we are taking all steps nescesary to protect Americans at home and across the world." This is exactly the point. Only one person, let alone Democrat, voted against giving the President authority to respond to 9/11 in Afghanistan and that was Rep. Barbara Lee. And though Democrats may disagree with the War on Terror in the way that it has been run, they do not disagree with its principles.

A lot of Republicans in Washington are talking today about how this busted up terror plot could be a turning point in what was looking to be a hairy November for their party. Rudy Guiliani, former NYC mayor and likely '08 presidential candidate, sent out an email urging people to donate to the Republican Party in this time of need so they can "defend America." Normally, in previous years, the Democrats would take something like a terror plot or a victory in Iraq and turn around and cower. Like John Kerry knows better than anyone, Americans don't like Republican-lite when it comes to issues. They like clear-cut stances and firm positions. This time, in November, the Democratic Party needs to offer a firm position and not back down like it did in 2002 and 2004.

There is nothing defeatist about not wanting to see our country bogged down and defeated in a Middle Eastern quagmire. And while isolationism is optimal, it is simply impractical in these modern times. The Democratic Party has the brains (and the balls) to fight the War on Terror as good, or better, as any Republican out there. We need to make this clear, over the next three months, to the American people. We can fight the tough fights are fight them better. We can protect this country against terror and bring the troops home. We can write legislation to protect America from terror and not assault the rights afforded by the Constitution. We can reach out to world leaders and form international coalitions who are ready and willing to join us in a logical, diplomatic fight against the threat of terror. The Democratic Party can do this and, as FDR once said, "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself."

Superned

2006-08-09T14:42:00.000-04:00

On his first day as the official nominee of the Democratic Party for US Senate, things have been going pretty good for Ned Lamont. While Joe Lieberman gets calls from Karl Rove, Ned Lamont has been racking up the endorsements of the nation's most prominant Democrats. Here is the list of Dems who have, as of right now, announced they will support Ned in November:

Bill & Hillary Clinton
Howard Dean, DNC chairman
Senator Harry Reid, Minority Leader
Senator Chuck Schumer, DSCC chairman
Senator Chris Dodd, CT's senior senator
Senator John Kerry
Senator Barbara Boxer
Senator Barack Obama
Senator Frank Lautenberg
John Edwards
Wes Clark (who wrote this awesome message to Joe about security on his PAC website)
.....and the list goes on

So far, so good.... still a long way to go

People Power

2006-08-09T09:31:00.000-04:00

Wow. From the moment standing in the ballroom of the hotel last night to right now that is pretty much all I can say. Back in March when I attended Ned Lamont's first campaign meeting (which was held in a high school classroom), I never thought he had a shot. Last night, he proved the world wrong and sent a shockwave across the country.

I am not going to do any in-depth analysis of last night or the primary in general right now but I will urge you to read up about it in other places. However, I would like to post Ned's victory speech (Part 1 and Part 2). If you see a fist/peace sign constantly being flashed from the first row, it's mine.

I decided last night, watching how close the primary was, that I am going to spend the entire last week of the general election campaign down here in my home state working for Ned. I know a lot of you cannot afford to do that with class, etc. but we should discuss the possibility of a "Campaign in CT" trip if anyone is interested. More on that later....

Apocalypto

2006-08-04T12:00:00.000-04:00

- "Talledega Nights: The Ballad of Ricky Bobby" hits theaters today... Need I say more?

- On a more serious note, as the conflict in Lebanon rages onward, check out journalist and author Jon Lee Anderson's newest piece in this weeks New Yorker about the war. He interviews many interesting people on both sides and really gives a decent firsthand account of the scene over there.

- Speaking of Israel, Mel Gibson has found himself in quite a bit of trouble lately. A lot of people are claiming this is the end of his career, since he claimed that Jews start all wars in the world (See: World War II) but neglected to remember that they run Hollywood, his former place of employment...

- Speaking of cars, three major automakers (GM, Ford, and Mazda) announced a deal with Apple to bring iPods into new cars. Sick! No more tape-player converter in my car!

- BC announced yesterday, via email to students, that the anyone under 21 who is caught in the Mods during a "special event" (i.e. football game, Marathon Monday) will lose their chance of living there during their senior year. Does this mean underage drinking is permited at all times besides when the alumni donors are around? Like half of them arent as drunk as the students goin to the games! Ever been to the Mod parking lot and seen your precious alumni, Fr. Leahy?

- I am going to now do a plug for a movie. 2006 has been, to this point, a pretty bad year for movies. Nevertheless, I have been seeing some pretty promising previews lately. One of these, "Children of Men," looks really interesting and I mention it here because the premise of the movie is that society has become so bad that women are no longer fertile and Clive Owen, just a normal guy, is forced to protect the one girl on Earth who is pregnant. Far fetched? Sure. Awesome? Probably. There a bunch of others but maybe I will dedicate a whole post to "Fall Movie Preview" in an effort to amp up the nonexistant Patriot Arts section.

Newsflash: Kansas Enters 21st Century

2006-08-02T18:40:00.000-04:00

What's the matter with Kansas?

Not much anymore. The August 1st primary (which also happens to be my birthday) has passed and the primary votes have been counted. It seems that my home state, once the accepted stereotype for Red Middle America, is finally beginning to see the error of its ways.

The KSGOP primary was marred by nearly record low turnouts, but at the end of the day, the State Board of Education race was a victory for moderates and liberals everywhere. That's right folks, the 6-4 majority that allowed the Board to pass anti-science, anti-progress, and anti-Evolution standards only 9 months ago is no more.

Among the first to fall from grace (if the manipulation of religious fanaticism for personal gain could ever be called grace) were Connie Morris, who called evolution a "fairy tale," and District 9's Brad Patzer. May they be forever remembered in the political hall of shame. This 2 seat shift has the potential to turn out a new 6-4 majority in favor of reason.

Also, ULTRA-conservative state senator Kay O'Connor, lost her bid for Secretary of State to the incumbent. While the BOE race was high profile, I admit that this was the first race whose results I checked on the AP website. One of my favorite O'Connor quotes, vintage 2001, is this:
"I think the 19th Amendment, while it's not an evil in and of itself, is a symptom of something I don't approve of. The 19th Amendment is around because men weren't doing their jobs, and I think that's sad."
Wow.
This from a woman who holds elected office. She doesn't think women should be able to vote.
Something here just doesn't add up. Also, she was slapped with two fines from the Ethics Commission for soliciting campaign donations from lobbyists, which happens to be illegal. Who knew? Apparently not Ms. O'Connor. But, more often than not, Johnson County voters just don't care about non sequiturs or criminal records as long as the person they elect "believes in the sanctity of marriage" and "doesn't kill babies." It's one of those things I will never understand. But hey, at least her Senate term is over and she's gone. Ding dong the witch is dead.

Other good news for those fighting the good fight in my state:
The current Democratic candidate for Attorney General is a reformed Republican. Also, Kate Sebelius's running mate is the former head of the GOP. Even a few state house candidates have realized that the grass really is greener on the Democratic side of the fence, and have repented on their evil ways, citing the never-to-often spoken words that they "Didn't leave the party, the party left them." Let's hope the GOP-boss Neo-Conservatives aren't getting the hint.

Is this mini-revolution a result of DNC chairman Howard Dean's "50 State Strategy?" Is it the vanguard for a Democratic victory in '08? I have no idea, and it's too far in the future to speculate. All I know is that seeing my homeland on the cusp of leaning blue is the best birthday present a girl could ask for.

FIDELity

2006-08-02T10:17:00.000-04:00

As the world watches for signs of life from an island 90 miles south of Florida, we see George Bush once again poised to have a 9/11-reading-to-kids moment. Fidel Castro, international badass/menance depending on who you are and ruler of Cuba since his revolution overthrew the government in 1959, has transfered power to his brother-in-arms Raul for the first time since taking office back when Eisenhower was still President. The anti-Castro Cubans are taking to the streets in Miami and praying for his death. The pro-Castro Cubans are taking to the streets in Havana and praying for his survival. Our current President, embrolied in a quagmire in Iraq and a bonafide international crisis in Lebanon, is likely praying for the "bad man to stop" as he watches the world fall into a freefall on his watch.

Whether Castro is actually ill (he is supposedly undergoing intestinal surgery) or not remains an important question. Some of his critics in Miami wonder whether this is simply a test of his power on the island in order to prevent for his death. For now, Castro has said that he would like his brother Raul to succeed him to the Presidency of Cuba. However, many loyalists question whether Raul has the aura and magnestism of his brother that keeps the socialist society together amidst calls for democracy and free markets.

So far, Cuba remains stable. No mass revolution has started as Fidel lies in a hospital bed. However, there are those in Miami who wish to invade Cuba "right away" once it is confirmed that Fidel is dead in order to not let Raul assume power. George Bush has said, obviously, that he would like to see Democracy in Cuba ASAP.

But even if Castro is not dead, he will be 80 on August 13th and Raul is not far behind him in age. The end of the Castro presidency is, whether everyone likes it or not, going to end rather soon. The prospect of this death presents challenges to two very different men: Fidel Castro and George W. Bush.

For Castro, understanding his mortality presents a challenge to keep his nation together after his death. Yasser Arafat, who died in 2004 and, despite being a internationally recognized leader, was not the glue that kept the society tied together. Castro, however, is the Cuban glue. In Jon Lee Anderson's most recent article in the New Yorker, he tells a story of a time in the mid-90s when Havana erupted in riots and Castro simply came down to the scene of the riots, calmed the crowds, and restored order simply with his presence. Although not all Cubans like Castro, they still respect him the his Revolution. His incredible charisma, though diminished through age, and vision compels the Cuban people to go along with his socialism that they might not go along with had it not been him telling them what to do. And Castro gets this. And Castro fears this. If he cannot find someone to take over his ongoing "Revolution," Castro and his Cuban socialism will be dead.

For Bush, understanding the complexity of Castro's death is ever-so-important. Although most Americans remember how we met the brink of war in the Castro-Kennedy duel of 1962, most people do not still feel as if Castro is the number on enemy of our country (Osama bin Laden far outdid anything Castro ever did on 9/11 in terms of making enemies with the US). Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), who will most likely run for President in 2008, has said that if elected he would lift the embargo on Cuba. Can you imagine Jimmy Carter campaigning on that agenda in 1976? He would be killed! Nevertheless, Bush is not known to be a softy when it comes to liberty and extending it to wherever he sees fit. Cuba is obviously one place he sees fit. So if Castro dies, Bush will find himself in yet another AWFUL situation that will pit him with the anti-Castro Miami Cubans who want to see Fidel out and democracy in. But will the Cuban people in Havana go for this? Will the US need to send in troops and overthrow Raul Castro?

In the course of the next few days, both sides (Washington and Havana) will be playing out plenty of scenarios. Raul has said the army is ready to meet an attack, whether it came from inside Cuba or out. Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela and hardcore Castro wannabe, has said that he supports Fidel and may be inclined to enter such a conflict in the interest of preserving Latin American leftism.

Is this Fidel's last dance? Stay tuned....

The Massachusetts Men

2006-07-31T14:17:00.000-04:00

The Senators from Massachusetts, Ted Kennedy and John Kerry, both had editorials over the weekend that I think deserve some attention. First, Senator Kennedy wrote an editorial in the Washington Post regarding Judges Roberts and Alito and how they have tilted the Supreme Court out of the mainstream. Second, Senator Kerry wrote an editorial in this morning's Boston Globe discussing his plan for universal healthcare.

Say what you will about both these men, but they are both bona fide heroes to me and anyone else who is on the downside of advantage. Senator Kennedy has perhaps overcome more grief in regards to his family than most people will encounter in a lifetime and, on a daily basis, stands up and hollers on behalf of average American people. Senator Kerry, on the other hand, is a decorated war hero and a true and true liberal who allowed ambition to overcome him in 2004 and failed to preach the record he really should have: his record as a legit liberal.

If I was to say that I didnt dream that Ted Kennedy would still run for President (or at least Majority Leader when we take back Congress in November), I would be lying. Of course, this is not going to happen. What is bound to happen, however, is that John Kerry is going to take a second shot at the Oval Office in 2008.

Recently, I had the chance to watch George Butler's great documentary "Going Upriver" which is the true story about Kerry's Vietnam record. Butler, who is also responsible for taking the amazing black and white photos of a 70s, humanized Kerry that I mentioned in my Patriot article in May, made the film in response to the Swift Boat Veterans ads to show people who the real John Kerry was in Vietnam. But, as you could guess, "Going Upriver" wasnt exactly in every theater in America the week before November 2, 2004. If you're interested, you can watch the documentary, in its entirety, for free here.

My advice? Check out the movie and read those two great editorials by the Men from Massachusetts and remember not to count Comeback Kerry out in 2008.

48 Hours

2006-07-31T09:48:00.000-04:00

- Israel has agreed to stop their bombing campaign for 48 hours in the aftermath of an attack that killed 60 people, most of whom were women and children. The Muslim world is on fire and the US is scrambling to work towards peace in the hopes of not inflaming the whole region. In the meantime, check this essay from acouple months ago by John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt entitled "The Israel Lobby."

- The Times ran two interesting articles yesterday. The first was an article about Minnesota Christian pastor who made an attack on his church's connection to the right. The second, an editorial, endorsed Ned Lamont in the Democratic Senate Primary in CT. Though this isnt really a shocker, it is still a big deal to those who like the paper and the candidate.

- To anyone who may be just getting to BC this fall and who may have found this link on the College Dems website, we are always looking for new people to contribute to the Patriot and would love to have you join us in the fall.

Peace Talks in Rome, Cross-State Abortions

2006-07-26T09:58:00.000-04:00

- The peace talks that have been going on in Rome over the past 24 hours have reached a stand still and an the parties have failed to reach an agreement. This comes a day after four UN unarmed observers were killed in Lebanon by an Israeli airstrike that UN Secretary General Kofi Annan described as "apparently deliberate." Hezbollah has agreed to a cease-fire but the US, led by Secretary of State Condi Rice, have said that is not good enough - they want to end long-term violence in the region. My advice: send in the big guns - President Clinton...

- Hugo Chavez, the leftist President of Venezuela who is being hailed as the "21st Century Castro," entered an agreement yesterday in Moscow to purchase Su-30 jets and AK-47s from Russia in order to build up his defenses to protect Venezuela from a perceived upcoming attack by the US.

- The Senate yesterday voted 65-34 to make it a federal crime to help an underage girl cross state lines without parental notification to get an abortion. A similar version was passed by the House last year and the President has said he will sign it. Opponents railed against the bill and cited cases in which the parent is the abuser of the child and would not allow the child to recieve and out of state abortion with the help of a different family member or clergy member. Senator Barbara Boxer, Democrat of California and strong choice supporter, said yesterday, "I dont think the American people support throwing Grandma in jail because she embraced her granddaughter and said, 'Oh my God, I'm worried that your Dad might hurt you if you tell the truth." The Republicans called upon the Democrats to appoint a committee to work out the details between the Senate and House bill and the Democrats objected, showing that they intend to make this law hard to pass.

- The New York Times has a pretty cool interactive election year guide each campaign season and it chronicles all the races for Governor, Senate, and the House and shows some stats about each district. I urge you to poke around!

The Dean Machine

2006-07-21T10:00:00.000-04:00

This week, US News & World Report published an article entitled "Dean's List" which covered DNC Chairman Howard Dean's controversal 50-State Strategy. In this plan, Dean believes the Party should look to hit voters head on with our message in all states, not just states like Ohio and Florida which have been labeled "swing states." Recruiting precent captains and donors in states like Mississippi have become the focus of Dean's plan for our own revolution much like the Republican revolution in 1994. With each day moving us closer to the midterm elections, many are wondering whether this will pay off.

The reason I chose to post on this today is not only because this article just came out but also because of how important I believe this strategy to be. Although I understand that elections are won and lost in the so-called "swing states" as it stands now, I dont think that is the way it needs to be. Part of the reason why I supported Howard Dean in 2004 and still support him to this day is because I think he is not afraid to stand up and tell it like it is. In his campaign, as we all know, he put energy and emotion before rehersals and note cards.

As the article says, Mississippi hasnt voted Democrat in a presidential election since 1976. However, prior to 1964-65, the South was a solid bastion of Democratic ideals. Famously, when Lyndon Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act, he said "there goes the South." And he was right. In 1968, as part of his "Southern Strategy," Richard Nixon helped turn the South Republican for the first time since Lincoln all but electorally condemned the party a century earlier. Since then, with the exception of Clinton and Carter picking up a southern state here and there, it has been all Republican.

How does Dean think he can change this? Well, he believes that Democrats just arent known as well as the Republicans are. His plan - which is already underway - calls for four paid-DNC staffers in each state who drum up support all year long for Democrats and their causes. These staffers sign up voters to be precinct captains and seek out high end donors. This, Dean believes, will begin the grassroots revolution that will bring a Party that was long forgotten back into the homes of average people in places where the Party has been afraid to go in recent years.

Does money need to be spent in places where elections are close? Of course. But simply making campaigns about both coasts is clearly not working and neither is simply dumping money into Florida and Ohio. We need to combat the Republican agenda all over the country, whether it is in the bluest of blue or the redest of red. Howard Dean believes that there is certainly some things in our party agenda that anyone can, given the chance, find attractive and I agree with him.

Howard Dean has a vision to return our party to the greatness it has achieved in the past and I believe the 50-State Strategy is a crucial part of our coming revolution to take back Congress and then the White House in 2008. For more information, check out the Democratic Party website to the right of this post.

Bush Diplomacy 101

2006-07-17T10:28:00.000-04:00

Sure, all of us and George have been through a lot of tough times over the past five years he has been in office. We have seen his efforts to privatize Social Security. We have seen his insistance of WMDs in Iraq. We even saw him get re-elected. But really, in the five years he has been in office, have we seen him deal with what can easily be labeled as an international crisis. It is safe to say that, with the escalation of Israel's attacks on Lebanon over the weekend, that the world is currently facing such a crisis and, with no suprise, it is once again our President who is making little strides towards pragmatic resolution.

Since the crisis began last Wednesday, Bush has offered little in the sense of international diplomacy in an effort to solve the situation besides supporting Israel's aggression and justifying it, as he justifies his own War on Terror, as a good vs. evil conflict. But today, Bush announced that he will likely send Secretary of State Condi Rice to the Middle East to help work towards a resolution. However, it was on the same day that Bush, who was meeting with the G-8 leaders in Russia, made his criticism of UN Secretary General Kofi Annan public.

In a conversation with Prime Minister Tony Blair which Bush thought was private, he responded to Blair's description of the UN effort to stop the violence by saying that, "See the irony is that what they need to do is get Syria to get Hezbollah to stop doing this shit and its over."

Bush went on to say that he believes he should simply "tell Kofi to get on the phone with Assad and make something happen." Blair, who seems to be running out of patience with Bush and his War on Terror, reiterated the need for a peacekeeping force to be deployed to the area. As the G-8 meeting concluded yesterday evening, Bush departed with no clear plan as to how to attack the crisis in the Middle East from the western perspective.

His above quotes can pretty much summarize the Bush diplomacy/foreign policy in the post-9/11 world. Bush believes that the world is seemingly black and white: the answer, to him, in this crisis is to simply tell Syria to tell Hezbollah to stop firing rockets into Israel and then everything will be OK again. Obviously, this is not the case.

The reason Hezbollah fired rockets into Israel in the first place was not because they were looking to ivade Israel or provoke war with them, but rather as a response to their invasion of Gaza. Since those initial rockets, Israel has destroyed a major airport, major roads, bombed countless villages, and threatens more attacks. And yet, to little suprise, the Hezbollah rockets keep coming.

As George Bush flies back to the White House and the skies of Beirut and Haifa lighten up with rocket fire and explosions, it is appropriate to examine just how poorly this crises can turn out for the entire world. The last time Israel invaded Lebanon, in 1982, it did not leave for 18 years. Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel has made it clear that his attacks in Lebanon will escalate unless the captured soldiers are returned and the rocket fire stops. Obviously, this will not happen. So the question is how long will the west wait until we intervene to stop this crises? How many rockets will have to fly before we realize that it is not taboo to scorn the Israelis for the collective punishment military missions? How many people will die (on both sides) before we realize that we should have spent the whole G-8 working with global leaders to find a solution that is fair to both the Muslims and the Jews? How long....? Only time will tell but I am afraid that we are running out of time before something devastating happens in the Middle East.

Crisis on the Horizon

2006-07-13T11:22:00.000-04:00

Early this morning, after entering southern Lebanon yesterday with tanks and ground troops, the Israeli military continued their aggression in the Middle East by bombing all three runways of the Beirut International Airport and blockading Lebanon's ports with their navy. In response, Hezbollah fired rockets into the northern Israeli city of Safed for the first time since 1972.

After the Israeli fighter jets bombarded the airport, Lebanese Interior Minister Ahmed Fatfat called the assault a "general act of war" saying that the airport had nothing to do with Hezbollah but rather was an attack on Lebanon's economic interests in the height of their tourist season. The Lebanese health ministry has claimed that 45 civillians have been killed since the Israeli invaision began yesterday.

Following the airport attack, Israeli planes dropped leaflets on Beirut warning of a coming attack. If that happened, Hezbollah announced that they would invade the northern Israeli city of Haifa, home to some 300,000 people.

The President of the Palestinian Authorit, Mahmoud Abbas, fears that a "regional war is mounting." The UN is currently sending representatives to the region to call for peace but the Israeli Security Cabinet Minister, Isaac Herzog, said that these military actions should show the world that "we mean business."

The Bush Administration has stayed very quiet in the past 48 hours besides simply urging Israel not to "weaken" the Lebanese government that it has worked well with since it lost its heavy Syrian influence last year.

It is my opinion that Israel is completely out of line in their actions in invading both Gaza and Lebanon and I believe they must be stopped not only for the safety of the civillians of the Middle East, but for the civillians of Israel as well. Continued military actions that weaken the stability of Lebanon could send signals to other Middle Eastern countries such as Syria, Jordan, and Israel that military action must be taken in their defense. Of course this is the worst case scenario, but it is of certainly possible.

Israel is skating on thin ice and their aggression, to quote George H.W. Bush, will not stand. I, like everyone, want to see peace in this region. But if Israel invades Beirut with ground forces, I believe we should all expect Israel to see serious counter attacks from both Hezbollah and elsewhere.

From Gaza to Lebanon

2006-07-12T09:43:00.000-04:00

Early this morning, the Lebanese guerilla group Hezbollah seized two Israeli soldiers in a raid close to the Lebanon-Israel border. Following this minor confrontation, Israel began an invaision of Lebanon and crossed over their border for the first time since 2000 when they withdrew their military presence there. This invaision comes two weeks into their other military excursion into Gaza where they hope to reclaim a captured soldier and cease rocket firing that stems from that area on a consistant basis.

It is common practice for Hezbollah to launch military measures such as firing rockets into Israel when there is a dispute between the Palestinians and Israelis. Currently, Gaza is embroiled in strife and the two week old Israeli invaision there has not been without controversy and accusations. This morning, according to the Times, the Israeli air force dropped a "powerful bomb" on the home of a Hamas government official, Nabel Abu Selmiya, killing him, his wife, and seven of his children whose ages ranged from 7-18.

In addition to targeting individuals, the Israeli military is engaging the Palestinian civillian population as well by patrolling the streets in tanks and taking over radio stations and broadcasting Israeli messages. The message, which is being read in Arabic, says that the Israeli army is not going to stop the invaision until the captured soldier is found. The message concludes by saying, "Israel is interested in your well-being. Is this the welfare that Hamas promised you?" On June 30, Amnesty International declared Israel's action in Gaza constitutes what is losely called war crimes due to the numerous civillians who have been hurt by this invaision, both militarily and due to the electrical and water shut downs.

The Israeli policy of collective punishment towards the Palestinian people is a policy which I, along with many others, consider to be quite wrong. Like the United States, but to a much greater extent, Israel certainly has a security concern that they must address with their government. Terrorism, whether you are liberal or conservative, cannot be spun into a non-issue. However, it is the way the government deals with terrorism that can be the subject of hours of debate. In my opinion, if you wanted to write a guidebook and fueling terrorist fire, please look at the America situation in Iraq and the Israeli situation in Gaza (and now Lebanon).
Though I give this analogy a lot, I feel like it is needed now. When you are a small child and you come to like playing in the yard, you will encounter many things that can be quite beautiful and quite dangerous. One day, while playing around, you get stung by a bee. From this moment on, you have two options. First, you can react reactively out of anger. From where you are, you can see the bee hive and could easily throw a rock a get revenge. But once you do, after feeling the satisfaction that you have struck back, you are faced with a swarm of angry bees and chances are you will be struck again. Or you could walk away, be pragmatic, and learn to coexist within your yard and all the beautiful things in it while understanding the danger of bees.

Let's face it: there is no worse situation in the world worse than that of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Throughout history, both sides have faced more than their fair share of oppression and hatred. I will not profess that I know the key to solving this great puzzle. I do know, however, that a lot of blood is being shed by BOTH sides and that I believe our generation needs to make a conscious effort to solve this conflict peacefully.

If anyone in the Boston area is interested, I have been getting some emails from the GJP regarding protests of Israel's action in Gaza and there is going to be one held downtown at the Israeli Consulate at 20 Park Plaza (Arlington T Stop) from 12:30 to 1 PM today.

Assalamu alaikum Shalom Peace

Debate!!! Part 2

2006-07-07T09:25:00.000-04:00

Unlike most competitions in life, in which Americans judge everything based on who wins and who loses, it is often very difficult to find a clear-cut winner of most political debates. When millions of Americans sit in front of their televisions to watch American Idol, they are bound to see someone win and they are bound to see someone lose and they like that. In politics, however, the debate is just one round in a long knockout fight - each man throws jabs at the other man hoping that they can hit them with the uppercut that will send them to the ground but that usually doesnt occur. All a man can hope for in a political debate is a good showing and a positive response by the press, for both sides of the camp are going to delcare victory in the debate no matter what and their respective supports will walk away feeling confident that their guy has got the upper hand.

The race for the Democratic Nomination for US Senate in Connecticut is what summoned me to my television last night and I watched, eyes glued, every minute of the hour long debate trying to determine who I felt had won and lost the debate. My candidate, the anti-war political novice Ned Lamont, was facing three-term incumbent Joe Lieberman, a man who I have come to despise over the years. As it is clear to those reading this now, my allegiance was declared to one of these men before the debate even began. It is also important to understand that most people watching this debate also knew where they stood as well, for there isnt a Democrat in the whole state who has yet to hear about this election.

The debate in itself was kind of a let down. Although Lieberman has tried lately to mold himself as a "John Kennedy" Democrat, this debate resembled nothing close to any debate Kennedy ever entered. Both sides entered the debate knowing their role: Lamont was going to go after Lieberman for being too close to the President and too out of touch with Connecticut and Lieberman was going to go after Lamont for his inexpierience and supposed single-issue candidacy. As the debate began, Lieberman attacked Lamont and, according to this morning's Hartford Courant, looked "caustic and dismissive." Not expecting this aggressiveness right off the bat, Lamont resembled a deer in headlights and looked at the wrong camera for close to twenty seconds of his opening statement.

Lieberman began by telling voters that Lamont's campaign was really a campaign against George W. Bush, not himself. "I know George Bush. I've worked against George Bush. I've even run against George Bush. But Ned, I'm not George Bush," he said. Following that statement, he appeared most angry when he said, "So why don't you stop running against him and have the courage to run against me." This was Lieberman at his best/worst depending on, once again, who you are. Lamont shot back, "Senator Lieberman, if you wont challenge President Bush and his failed agenda, I will."

Though there are many instances where Joe Lieberman has backed the President, this exchange was based on one issue: Iraq. Lieberman, who voted to give the President authority to attack Iraq in 2002, has stood in support of the President and this war since then and has come under intense pressure to modify his position and call to end the war as many other members of his party has. But Lieberman won't budge. Ned Lamont will. His campaign began with this issue and coming into the debate, Lamont needed to expose just how poorly Lieberman's support of this war speaks of his character and judgment. But Lieberman was ready. Knowing that the majority of Lamont's suburban, liberal base stems from his reservations and criticism about the war, Lieberman tried to show that Lamont had changed his position on Iraq and withdrawl up to six times in the course of this campaign. Looking to his left at Lieberman, Lamont said, "Senator, you are the only person in Connecticut who is confused about my position in Iraq."

The debate raged on for close to another forty-five with little fanfare or excitement. Both camps stuck to their gameplans and no bold moves were made. Lamont tried to go after Lieberman, in a civil way, for his announcement last Monday that he will gather signatures in case he loses the primary so that he can remain on the ballot. Lieberman tried to counter Lamont's charges that he works too muh with Republicans by saying that when Lamont served on the Board of Selectman in the 80s, he voted with the Republicans 80 percent of the time. In what was perhaps his best answer of the whole evening, Lamont shot back that cooperating with Republicans on issues of potholes and stop signs is different than cooperating with them on foreign and domestic policy.

If I had watched this debate not knowing anything about either candidate or this election in general, I would be inclined to say that Lieberman won this debate hands down. He had poise and he has expierience even if I do not agree with many aspects of his record. He looked polished and even though he came off as combative and angry throughout the majority of the debate, he still looked more senatorial than Ned Lamont. Lamont, though I agree with his positions, came off exactly as how Lieberman played him: a wealthy Greenwich capitalist who's political expierience comes as a town selectman and from his wealthy liberal friends who urged him into this race to talk about one issue, Iraq. When he responded to Lieberman about Iraq, he would speak to the same old tune that we have been mislead and that $250 million gets spent every day on a failed war when people dont have healthcare and the education system struggles. Though he is correct, he framed the debate in such a way where he didnt inspire as much as just commentate and that is why I believe he technically lost last night's debate.

The good news, however, is that almost no one in this primary is undecided. When Lamont first entered this race in March, people like myself jumped behind his bandwagon not so much because we believed he was the second coming of some of my heroes like Paul Wellstone or Robert Kennedy, but because he was an alternative to Joe Lieberman and his policies.

The vote, which will be held one month from tomorrow, is going to be close according to most polls and politcal pundits who have been covering this race nonstop since it began. I see Ned Lamont bumper stickers almost everywhere I go and this morning on my way to work I saw a huge sign on an overpass on I-95 that said, in huge letters, "Bush and Lieberman sitting in a tree.." and I laughed. I will continue to cover this race pretty closely, especially as it gets down towards the wire and we are back on campus and writing in print form.

Debate!!!

2006-07-06T16:02:00.000-04:00

I may be biased, but it seems like tonight's debate between Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman is a hot item. If you are interested in seeing what is shaping up to be a bitter/nasty/great debate, tune in at 7 PM ET. The debate is on NBC if you live in the state and will also be on live on MSNBC and CSPAN. I'll post a recap tomorrow...

P.S. - Today is George W. Bush's 60th birthday aka George H.W. Bush Should Have Worn A Condom Day

Happy Fourth of July (Belated)

2006-07-05T10:06:00.000-04:00

- North Korea tested seven missiles yesterday over the Sea of Japan, including one intercontinental missile that was developed to have capability of hitting Alaska or the American West Coast, much to the dismay of Japan, China, and the United States. The UN Security Council will convene today to discuss a possible response.

- The space shuttle Discovery launched into the atmosphere yesterday afternoon with no problems to begin a 13 day trip through space.

- This morning, the casinos and parks of New Jersey have been added to the list of things shut down by Governor Jon Corzine and his executive order that was issued after the legislature failed to pass his budget. The lottery and road construction has already been shut down and a good chunk of state workers are not working currently. People are getting mad in Jersey...

- Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, the leftist candidate for President in Mexico, has demanded a "vote by vote" recount of Sunday's election results. The recount will begin today and may take some time. Though there has been a trend of left-leaning leaders elected in Latin America in the past year, none have ever come as close to the US as Mexico. Obrador's election would join him in the ranks of Chavez of Venezuela, Morales of Bolivia, and of couse Castro of Cuba. However, Bush & Co. certainly would not like to have such a populist on their direct border. Obrador is, of course, a total demagogue and that is why I, and seemingly the entire working poor populace of Mexico, like him.

- Italy defeated Germany 2-0 in the second overtime of the World Cup semifinal. They face the winner of the Portugal-France game that is happening today. Let's go France!

Lieberman...

2006-07-03T17:46:00.000-04:00

It is with great pleasure that I announce to the readership of this blog that Senator Joe Lieberman has officially delcared, as of 1 pm this afternoon, has announced how UN-loyal he is to the Democratic Party. Being the scumbag that he is, and facing a primary challenge from a REAL Democrat, Ned Lamont, Lieberman announced today on the steps of the capitol in Hartford that he would be collecting signatures to appear on the ballot in November nomatter what the outcome of the August 8 primary is.

Though I am up in Boston celebrating the Fourth of July with some friends, I can tell you that the Connecticut political world is on FIRE. No one is shocked by this announcement - everyone has floated the idea of this day in the air since Lamont got in this thing in March. However, I never believed I would see the day Joe would actually leave our party. After all, he never belonged in it anyway.

This Thursday, Lamont and Lieberman are meeting in the first debate for the Democratic Nomination for US Senate. From what I've heard, it is going to be broadcast live on C-SPAN on Thursday night at 7 pm. I encourage all of you to watch it - it is gonna be a slugfest. Lamont is going to hammer the hell out of Lieberman not only for today's announcement, but for his record in the Senate for the past 18 years.

Joe Lieberman has left the Democratic Party today and I am jumping for joy. Watch the debate and check out these blogs, Daily Kos and My Left Nutmeg, a Connecticut politics blog, if you are interested further.

To be continued....

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld

2006-06-30T10:47:00.000-04:00

Yesterday, Justice John Paul Stevens laid the smack down on the Bush Administration for their detention policies regarding suspected terrorists who are now being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the 5-3 decision, Stevens delivered the majority opinion which limits the Administration's ability to prosecute "enemy combatants" with military tribunals. The decision forces Bush & Co. to develop a new way to prosecute the suspects who are being held with little to no rights on the island 90 miles south of the US.

Not since 1974, when the Court ruled to force President Richard Nixon to disclose the Watergate tapes, has the Court tested a sitting President's power like they did yesterday. The decision came as a huge blow to not only the President, but to his party. In addition to the White House and the Court, the Senate has been thrown into the case as well with pledges from both sides to investigate this issue further after Congress returns from the Fourth of July recess. Senator Arlen Specter, Republican from Pennslyvania and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, said yesterday that his committee would hold a hearing "immediately" and that he tried to propose such legislation in 2002 and was met with resistance from the White House.

Things are going to get interesting. If you want to be a good Patriot reader (aka you have a lot of time on your hands), you should read the decision. I know I'm gonna!

Excommunication?

2006-06-30T10:41:00.000-04:00

Yesterday the Vatican threw caution to the wind and stated that scientists who carry out embryonic stem-cell research and politicians who pass laws permitting the practice will be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. One can surely understand the Church’s opinion with regard to the research. It is a perfectly valid stance to take, and one held by many Catholics and non-Catholics alike. The extremism exhibited by utilizing the Church’s ultimate measure of condemnation is what sets this measure apart from advocating a particular set of morals and values. The stem-cell research debate is a moral conundrum for Catholics. Valuing the sanctity of life refers to the pre-born and the post-born alike. Whether one supports abortion or not, stem-cell research offers hope to many with diseases that are terminal. Leaving the research and utilization of a possible cure untapped because of an overarching principle is almost tantamount to not using a vaccine on someone because you disagree with animal testing. The action of purposefully not saving a life is also inhumane. Stem cell lines will exist despite the Catholic Church’s ban on abortion. It is a simple fact that people will continue to engage in the practice and the lines will remain open.

Many wonder if the Church can survive the challenges of modernity being thrust upon it in the ever-changing scientific world of the 21^st century. The threat is embodied in the words of individuals like Professor Cesare Galli of the Laboratory of Reproductive Technologies in Cremona, who stated “"I can bear excommunication. I was raised as a Catholic, I share Catholic values, but I am able to make my own judgment on some issues and I do not need to be told by the Church what to do or to think.”

An Italian senator, Paola Binetti, a member of Opus Dei, also expressed her displeasure with the Church’s action. "I am upset and stunned," she said. "It is a mistake to give out the idea that God is angry with Man because he is not in agreement with him." One knows the Church has strayed slightly too far to the right when a member of Opus Dei is questioning its judgment. “What would Jesus do?” Does not imply in a situation where each side of the question has morality and ethics supporting their beliefs. Perhaps instead of the duck and cover approach of running to the ideological right on this issue, the Church may spend some time in the middle. Perhaps once again, the Truth (capital T) lies here, and God’s world is not as absolute as previously thought. Maybe it is not flat either.

Quickies

2006-06-28T10:12:00.000-04:00

- Israel launched an invasion of Gaza yesterday aimed at reclaimining a captured Israeli soldier, their largest military action in the territory since their pullout last summer. They have knocked out an energy station in Gaza City leaving most 1.4 million people of the region without power. Israeli fighter jets have also destroyed bridges that connect north and south Gaza to supposedly cut off transport of the captured soldier. The Palestinian Popular Resistance Committees said the soldier will be "butchered" if Israel does not stop its raid on Gaza.

- The Senate voted 66-34, one vote short of the 2/3 vote required, yesterday on a Republican proposal to amend the Constitution to prohibit flag burning. A very big win for the Democrats, though there were many Democrats who voted in favor of the amendment.

- Harry Reid, the Minority Leader in the Senate, says that the Democrats will block pay raises for members of Congress until the minimum wage is increased. We'll see how that goes. (Fun fact: Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) promised to never accept a pay raise in Congress while running in 1992 and has since returned close to $50,000 to the US Treasury.)

An Inconvenient Truth

2006-06-24T17:32:00.000-04:00

Let me use this blog to announce formally to the few readers who may stumble upon this space once in a while that I endorse Al Gore for any public office he may choose to seek in the future, whether it be for dog catcher or President of the United States.

On this rainy Saturday, I made my way down to the local art cinema to see his new movie "An Inconvenient Truth." Though the movie has been out for some time, things like that take a little bit longer to hit the suburbs of Connecticut. Nevertheless, I have finally seen the film and it confirmed even further my uncompromising support of post-2000 Al Gore.

I encourage everyone to see this movie regardless of whether they share my affection of Gore. To his credit, Gore does not use this hour and a half to tell everyone his feelings and then rip his political opposition unlike most political films. Rather, what Gore does is show filmgoers clips of his lectures (one of which I was lucky enough to catch in person at Yale in 2003) that are chock full of slides and fact-filled graphs and then also offer very personal clips and shots of him alone in various settings while a voice-over connects several life lessons into his struggle for global warming education.

"An Inconvenient Truth" is a very moving film, though chances are it won't be a blockbuster at the box office. But, soon enough, this problem is going to confront mainstream America head on. In some ways, throughout the film, Gore suggests that it already has (i.e. Hurricane Katrina).

Some people who pay attention to politics, myself included, may believe that losing the 2000 Presidential Election (well, kind of losing) was the best thing that could have ever happened to Al Gore. It seems like a different man is part of our national conscience now - a man liberated of the contraints of his constituency in the South when he was in Congress and the centrist, Third Way administration in which he served as Vice President. Aside from policy, Gore has generally lightened up - he can now laugh and people like that.

Also, it has seemed that Gore has shifted with grace and ease to the left since 2000 much to the pleasure of the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party. Though he has always stood up for environmental causes and action, Gore never before seemed to be any sort of foreign policy dove. From the start, Gore was a strong opponent to the Iraq War and just last MLK Day he delivered one of the best speeches I have ever seen about civil rights and wiretapping.

See the movie. Read some speeches. Make your mind up for yourself. Check out the new, improved Albert Gore...

The John Edwards Great Society

2006-06-22T14:38:00.000-04:00

This afternoon, former Senator and Vice Presidential nominee John Edwards will deliver a speech at the National Press Club in Washington outlining his plan to end poverty in the US within 30 years. However ambitious this may sound, Edwards takes a really positive step forward in terms of 2008 by announcing such a sound (and yes, realistic) policy proposal. Here is an outline of the plan:

Raise minimum wage to $7.50
Create one million "stepping stone" jobs for low income Americans over five years
Overhaul Federal Housing
Segregated low-income families are too far from good jobs and good schools and deserve better.
Create one million more housing vouchers for working families within five years.
Cut down the HUD budget that has become too large and ineffective and trim the agency down to 1,500 employees and use that money for actual change.
"College for Everyone" - allow people to go to college for their freshman year for free if they dont get into trouble and get a part-time job.
Fixing high schools - fighting the dropout rate which has reached a million and giving kids better school systems.
Establishing a "Second Chance" school for adults and kids who have dropped out already.

A lot of politicians have tried to "end" poverty before. Too many times politicians create lofty goals and start wars on things that arent exactly winnable (i.e. War on Terrorism, War on Drugs). The plan that Edwards is putting forward doesnt strike me as that kind of plan at all. Everything he says is quite doable. There are 37 million people living in poverty and government has every right (and responsibility) to do something about that.

In 1932, Governor Huey Long of Louisiana promised to make "Every Man a King" by giving them a house and a car. This kind of socialism, while maybe appealing to some, is simply not practical in the US. But the Edwards plan is different - it doesnt tell people that the government is going to give them something, it tells them that they are going to help them be able to work hard like the rest of America so that they can give themselves something. To me, that is what government is all about - making life easier for people so that they can raise themselves up to wherever they want to position themselves in life. Giving out things to the community doesnt breed change - changing the community does. I think that is what Edwards is trying to do and I support that completely. Time will tell if most Americans feel the same way.

Kerry-Feingold Proposal

2006-06-22T14:25:00.000-04:00

As a follow up to the last post regarding John Kerry's attempts to get the troops out of Iraq by next July, I wanted to keep you guys informed about the results of the vote. As one could have guessed, it was killed 86-13 with Sen. Rockefeller of West Virginia absent. I am going to post the list of those who voted for the amendment because I think they deserve special recognition.

Senator John Kerry (D-MA), sponsor
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI), sponsor
Senator Daniel Akaka (D-HI)
Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), cosponsor
Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL), Minority Whip
Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)
Senator Daniel Inouye (D-HI)
Senator Jim Jeffords (I-VT)
Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)
Senator Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), cosponsor
Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ)
Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Not that I want to take up the Bush mantra of "with us or against us," but in my mind those are the true progressives that make up the Democratic Party. No Harry Reid. No Barack "Sellout" Obama. No Hillary Clinton. Certainly not my Senator, Joe Lieberman. Anyone not willing to support this resolution clearly does not understand just how important it is that we exit Iraq even by this modest deadline (I'm sure some of those who voted for this would obviously vote to withdrawl by the end of this year as well).

There are acouple potential presidential candidates in that list of 13 and dont think that I, or the progressive community, will forget about their efforts on this vote when it comes primary time.

House Divided

2006-06-21T09:32:00.000-04:00

There are times when it seems to me that there are only two people who really like John Kerry in America: me and the man himself. Sure, I see Kerry/Edwards bumper stickers still stuck on cars on the highway. But did those people ever really like him or did they mostly just dislike Bush? I wrote an article in the Patriot in May entitled "The Re-Liberalization of John Kerry" in which I tried to depict who the real Kerry was and who he is trying to be currently. For any evidence of this attempt, please direct your attention to C-SPAN this evening as he battles (virtually alone) for his amendment calling for troop withdrawl from Iraq by July of 2007 (moved back from December of this year).

Harry Reid, the Minority Leader, and the rest of the ever-so-cautious Democratic Leadership have decided to move the debate over his amendment to late this evening so that it will not receive news coverage while they are planning on debating their own resolution of withdrawl during the day. Their offer, put forward by Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) and Senator Jack Reed (D-RI), calls for a withdrawl from Iraq without setting a date. Most Democrats, worried about being too abrasive to voters leading up to what is considered to be a very important election, are tending to support the Levin/Reed approach as opposed to Kerry's.

It may be safe to say that John Kerry is one of the most, if not the most, disliked member of the Democratic caucus. Not only do members feel as if he blew the 2004 election by not taking strong enough stances, they do not like the fact that he is taking such strong chances now, two years later, seemingly endangering party unity on this issue. It is clear, however, that the party is in fact divided over this issue between the progressive and centrist wings of the party. Mr. Kerry, as I have pointed out on many occasions, is a solid member of the progressive wing and seems to have become its leader as of late.

For someone like Kerry, whose nickname in Massachusetts political circles has been "Liveshot" since the mid-80s, it must be tough to be the kid left out of the party these days. Nevertheless, he finally seems to be caring more about what is right and not so much about popularity - something he did ever so well in his life before 2004.

The Future of the Senate

2006-06-15T11:16:00.000-04:00

The United States Senate, believe it or not, was once a place of intense respect. People would travel for miles and miles to come here debates that would happen between some of our greatest orators. This, of course, was in the 1850s. Now, the Senate that used to be called the greatest debate body in the world has become the "Millionaires Club." This year, however, the Democrats need six seats to take back the Senate for the first time since 1994 with the exception of one year from 2001-2002 when Sen. Jim Jeffords of Vermont switched from Republican to Independant. Below are the Senate races that could change the face of the Senate.

Pennsylvania
Senator Rick Santorum, my vote for "Most Hated Republican" in our little poll for the paper a few months ago, is fighting for his political life against challenger Bob Casey, Jr. Casey, who is a pro-life Democrat, has ran a really good campaign and most pundits label this as the most imporant race this year. Today's poll shows Casey leading Santorum 49% to 40%. Although Casey and I disagree on a women's right to choose, I believe he is a solid Democrat who has a history of fighting for the underdog and the poor as State Auditor and State Treasurer and taught middle school in inner city Philly after graduating from college. Look for him to beat Santorum this fall and put us one vote closer to taking back the Senate.

Montana
Montana? I kid you not. If there is one state not on either coast that is showing signs of hope for progressive politics it is the state of Montana. In 2004, a Democratic rancher named Brian Schweitzer was elected Governor and has since made it a point to try to recall Montana's National Guard from Iraq to deal with state issues like wildfire but also to turn the state's large coal industry into alternative energy. This year, a protege of his named Jon Tester will face Sen. Conrad Burns (one of Time Magazine's Five Worst Senators) in an election people place second on the list of possible gains. Tester just destroyed his DLC-sponsored opponent in the primary and is the real, progressive deal. A former music teacher in his town of 700, Tester is starting to make a lot of noise about Burns' involvement with Jack Abramoff and him losing touch with real Montana issues that he, as a rancher, understands. Call it a gimmick, but it works. He has a buzz cut, a finger missing on one hand from an accident, and speaks in a burly voice. Tester is going to beat Burns.

Rhode Island
Although it would tough to find me weeping for any Republican, I do feel bad that Lincoln Chafee is probably going to lose his bid for re-election this November. Chafee, who is about as liberal a Republican as you can get, is racing a tough battle any way he looks this year. From the right there is Cranston Mayor Steve Laffey and from the left is former Attorney General Sheldon Whitehouse. If Laffey wins the primary (which he might), then look for Whitehouse to pick up the seat easily with poll numbers showing him swamping Laffey 60-25%. Keep an eye on the Ocean State in the next few months.

Missouri
Sen. Jim Talent was elected to the Senate in 2002 following a very bizarre, and somewhat comical, chain of events. In 2000, Sen. Mel Carnahan, a Democrat, died in a plane crash but remained on the ballot and defeated John Ashcroft, his Republican opponent and future Attorney General. Because of this defeat, Carnahan's widow Jean to fill the term until a special election in 2002. That year, Talent defeated Jean Carnahan in a close election by a margin of 50-49, leaving many to believe he was extreemly vulnerable in the next official election - 2006. In the four years in the Senate, Talent has made himself stand out on two issues - flag burning and stem cell research, both of which he wishes to ban through constitutional amendments. His opponent this year, Claire McCaskill, also has a strange political history. In 2004, McCaskill challenged the Governor, who was a Democrat, to a primary and defeated him. In the general election, she was defeated in yet another close election of 50-47. Polls from this race show McCaskill and Talent neck and neck, with polls ranging from her being down anywhere between two and five percentage points. Regardless of who wins, this one is going to be close.

Ohio
The Florida of 2004. This year, Republican Sen. Mike DeWine is up for re-election against
Congressman Sherrod Brown. Dewine, like Chafee to a lesser extent, is a more liberal Republican than we are used to seeing lately. He received an F from the NRA in 2004, has the most liberal pro-life record you can have while still opposing abortion (supporting it in cases of rape or incest), opposes ANWR and supports an increase in the minimum wage. Originally, this election was supposed to be about the war. Paul Hackett, an Iraq veteran who gained national attention when he ran for Congress last summer in a special election, challenged Brown for the nomination and ultimately was forced out of the primary "for the better of the party" by the DLC.

Virginia
Besides Rick Santorum, it is safe to say that Sen. George Allen ranks high on the list of "Most Hated Republicans" in the Senate. Although he was born and bred in Southern California while his father was a football coach, he acts/talks/walks just like he is a good ole boy (including chewing tobacco, have a noose in his office, and having a Confederate license plate on his Ford Mustang when he was in high school). Allen is considered to be in line for the neo-con nod of approval come 2008 when he most likely runs for President against more moderate Republicans like McCain and Giuliani. But first, Allen has to worry about James Webb, the Democrat and former Reagan Navy secretary who fled the GOP after their handling of Iraq. In his campaign so far, Webb has made a point to pin Allen as a Bush lapdog who follows the Executive agenda too closely for Virginia's own good. We'll see if it works.

Those are just six of the Senate races that most pundits have agreed will be the most watched in November. Check out the candidates websites and learn what you can and if you are from any of those states, feel free to knock on a few doors or put a sticker on your car to help take back the Senate!

First Polls, Last Looks

2006-06-12T13:29:00.000-04:00

The Des Moines Register released their first straw poll for the 2008 Democratic Caucus that will be held in January of that year. The results are somewhat suprising but these polls are just a "first look" and not really of any meaning because the election is still a long way away. Nevertheless, a look at what Iowa is thinking these days:

Former Senator John Edwards (D-NC) - 30%
Senator Hillary Clinton (D-NY) - 26%
Senator John Kerry (D-MA) - 12%
Governor Tom Vilsack (D-IA) - 10%
Former Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD) - 3%
Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) - 3%
Former Governor John Warner (D-VA) - 3%
Senator Evan Bayh (D-ID) - 2%
Retired General Wesley Clark (D-AR) - 2%

Suprising: The progressive community (aka the only people in America who have been talking about 2008 prior to this November) has been solid behind two people - Russ Feingold and Wes Clark. Feingold for his bold move to censure Bush for wiretapping and his constant support for the progressive community and Clark for, well, I dont really know. Feingold understandably has a low showing in this poll because he is deemed unelectable by most but Clark's last place finish is somewhat shocking (Note: He was not on the Iowa ballot in '04 and did not campaign there, instead opting to put all his eggs in one basket and try to win New Hampshire.) Also suprising is Mark Warner's low numbers. Warner has been touted as the "anti-Hillary" and has gotten good national press but his bad numbers expose several things: either people havent heard of him yet or that people have heard of him and can see through his compassionate centrism.

Not suprising: The boys of '04 top the ticket (well, almost). Edwards most likely believes 2008 is his shot to do all that Kerry didnt do with him on the lower half of the ticket. Kerry most likely believes 2008 is his shot to be the real John Kerry now that he is making sure every position he tacks is rock hard. Vilsack is very popular in his native state and could use a fairly impressive showing there to catipult him to New Hampshire but this is unlikely. Finally, Daschle being low in the polls is no shocker: he went from being the most important Dem in the US Senate to being out of a job two years ago and confidence in him among Dems is very low.

Gore says he is still not running but I, along with most of the world who understand the enormous popularity he has in this country (which has increased 10 fold since he "won" in 2000), cannot fathom him not giving it a shot. If Gore enters this, it is game over. I cannot even see Hillary running against him. Some of them might still stay in the race, but look for most of them to be kissing up for the VP nod if Gore does in fact get into this thing. I know I'm keeping my fingers crossed.

Speaking of 2004, a debate has cropped up recently between RFK, Jr. and Farhad Manjoo of Salon.com over Kennedy's article in Rolling Stone in which he makes the case for how Bush & Co. stole the election. Manjoo, of course, disagrees. They have both been sparring through different essays and its pretty well written, interesting stuff. I am gonna post something on this in the next few days when I get the chance to write it out in between work, etc.