Posts with the tag democrats

DC Political Elites Out of Touch?

Liberaltarian — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 11:54:05 EDT

..And in other shocking news, the sky is blue! The Pope is Catholic! Economists are myopic!

The Washington Post has a great article today about how many national political figures who live in DC, and are "representing" DC at the DNC next week, are clueless about DC itself:

Harold Ickes is the prototypical insider, a career political operative who knows as much about how Washington works as anyone. Just don't ask the former Clinton White House official and Democratic superdelegate what ward he lives in.
"Oh boy," Ickes said recently by phone. "It's either 2 or 7. I live in Georgetown."
Or who represents him on the D.C. Council.
"Don't know."
Or the name of the public schools chancellor.
"I don't know the name, an Asian woman."
If Ickes isn't plugged into the local political scene -- correct answers: Ward 2, Jack Evans and Michelle A. Rhee -- that's because there have long been two separate and distinct Washingtons. One is federal, the other local, and rarely do those in these two worlds think of one another.

Though that last sentence isn't really correct. I know the writer was going for a semblance of "balance," but the fact is that local-DC politicians are acutely aware of what's happening on Capitol Hill. Congress has veto power over DC, and not vice-versa. Reminds me of the roving racists in Youth for Western Civilization, hosting Tom Tancredo speeches in diverse communities.

Perhaps it's best described by stealing a line from Stephen Colbert's epic win of a Correspondents Dinner performance: "DC is a chocolate city too, with a marshmallow center."

Speaking Youth to Power

Eugene Resnick — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 14:35:37 EDT

http://www.bilerico.com/2008/07/speaking_youth_to_power.php

One thing that can be said about the current generation of young gays is that they are a smart and ambitious lot. Eugene Resnick, an openly gay candidate for National Membership Director of the College Democrats, definitely fits that mold. He's focused, savvy and "cliched as it sounds" committed to making a difference.

I had the chance to ask Eugene some questions about being openly gay, youth political involvement and why being a "gay Russian Jew from Brooklyn" can be an asset.

MC: There is more than a little hand-wringing from some older people over what they see as a lack of political involvement from younger people. You are clearly not living up to that image.

ER: I hope that I can make a difference in our society as cliché as that sounds. I want to raise the voice of those who have no voice. I understand what its like to be the one that's counted out. I see many young people who are very engaged and very much care about the society we live in and the changes we need enacted. Our generation understands the complexities ahead and the deep institutional problems that this country has faced.

For us, race, gender and sexuality don't really matter anymore as a factor in judgment of one's character. We are for the most part the first generation that transcends such superficial human traits and sees everyone on the same playing field. I hope to remain active, continue on by earning a higher education in law and public policy, and eventually serve the public by running for office. In the meantime, I hope to do whatever I can to engage my fellow young people in the political process so that they can be active members of our thriving democracy.

What Makes Eugene Run?

MC: Is that why you want to be National Membership Director for the College Democrats?

ER: I am running because I believe I have the foresight, experience, and passion needed to be successful in this position. The National Membership Director position requires an individual with an ability to build coalitions between groups and establish friendships and contacts with people that are not usual coalition partners.

With an election year this year that has so much Democratic enthusiasm for our candidate, Barack Obama, there is so much potential for massive growth in terms of membership in College Democrats organizations throughout the country. We can expand into all 50 states, forming local and state chapters at schools that have never had a College Democrats organization. There are many students across the country who feel ostracized for being a Democrat especially in more conservative regions, and this must end.

At a time with so much enthusiasm for change, there is much potential to be tapped into in terms of youth activism and involvement in politics that has not been seen since the 1960s. The role of the National Membership Director is to spearhead new chapters, get more students involved in College Democrats, and outreach to individuals of all backgrounds to ensure the Democratic Party grows and further diversifies. I believe I can help make that happen.

MC: What are some of the skills and experiences that make you qualified for that role?

ER: I served as Minority and Women's Affairs Coordinator at the University Democrats at the University of Virginia reaching out to various Black, Latino, Asian, LGBT and Women's groups on campus to get them more politically involved and have a voice within the Democratic Party. I formed the first ever statewide College Democrats organization in Virginia bringing together students from across the state to bring to the forefront the voice of college students in the Commonwealth.

My tenure as President of the statewide organization resulted in the recent merger with the Virginia Young Democrats forming a massive young Democratic organization in Virginia poised to register large amounts of new young voters, have their voices heard by getting them to the polls, but mostly importantly have young people engaged in the American political discourse. I currently am interning in Washington, DC with the National Stonewall Democrats specifically working on field operations across the country, helping chapters build membership and outreach along with helping them target certain races this election cycle.

Being Gay Not What it Used to Be

MC: Has been openly gay hurt or helped you in taking on leadership roles with the College Democrats?

ER: Being openly gay has helped me in taking on leadership roles with the College Democrats. My first election was when I ran for Minority and Women's Affairs Coordinator at the University Democrats at the University of Virginia. I ran on the platform of not only being a fresh face, but also by taking ownership of my multiple minority identity. I was the "gay Russian Jew from Brooklyn" running in a race in a majority white, Anglo-Saxon Protestant, institution in the South.

One might think I was tokenized into the minority leadership role, but I stood up as a voice for the LGBT community at the University on the Board of Directors. Now I have risen up the ladder into leadership statewide. I have a large network of friends and colleagues with whom I am politically and academically involved who serve as my support system. I have never felt hindered being openly gay and that is a reflection of how our generation is so vastly different from any other in American history.

MC: What do you say to other young people to help them realize their political power?

ER: Facebook is a powerful tool and it has proven to be an extremely effective way of mobilizing people to become involved in a cause. I tell other young people I meet who may be cynical or wary of politics if at all interested is that that they have a stake in society. Young people today are vastly different from generations before and there are a multitude of problems that this country is facing today that need to be fixed and we are the generation to make it happen. We are over the race divisions of the 50s and 60s and the gay baiting of the 80s and 90s. We grew up with gay Student Body Presidents, blacks and whites, Latinos and Asians sitting at the same table, and females occupying a majority of the education system. We are Generation Y.

I let people know that there must be an issue that affects them whether its outrageous gas prices, denial of their civil rights as gay or black or Latino or an immigrant, predatory student loans that haunt students for years to come, high college costs, difficulty getting health insurance as a young independent person, or having their friends or family member die for a war that was poorly executed and under false pretenses. I tell them that they have a stake in this election and in the future with all these issues that impact them one way or another.

Way To Go Dems; Listen To The MSM And Hand The Election To The GOP!

Justanothercoverup — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 10:41:33 EDT

For the past seven (7) years, the Mainstream News Media has favored the Bush administration and has refused to publish facts and report upon issues that are critical to the survival of Democracy in America. Their bias and downright refusal to honestly report the facts rather than spin and propaganda has been well documented - yet because it’s election time, in spite of a track record that indicates the MSM is as much to blame for our downward spiral into fascism as the President himself - Democrats on both sides of the isle are buying into the havoc the MSM is creating within the Democratic party itself, which is evidenced by John McCain’s rise in the polls which indicates he is polling ahead of Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama. It’s obvious I don’t understand the politics of Presidential elections as I watch the GOP pull ahead on matters the public has already condemned LINK, however, as long as we give credence to a MSM that has actively hid the truth from the American people for seven long years and are hell bent on distracting the public from the real issues this nation faces while they create havoc within the Democratic Party - I see the ultimate consequence of our infighting resulting in another loss to the warmongers that are intent on destroying America. Have we forgotten the damage the MSM has wrought upon America? The Enablers Of Fascism, The Mainstream News Media

Firedoglake published an Op-Ed that reveals the MSM’s influence on the Presidential campaign as it pertains to the Obama/Clinton debacle - and when we realize that much of the indignation and hyperbole of this controversy has been created and fanned by the MSM, we should also understand that it’s not by accident, but meant to influence the election and help to place another GOP candidate in the White House!

The Media’s Race Problem

By: David Neiwert Thursday March 20, 2008 6:00 pm

Probably the most remarkable aspect of the recent feeding frenzy about Barack Obama’s so-called “pastor problem” — besides the agility and smarts that Obama has displayed in handling it — is not as much what it reveals about the state of race in America as what it reveals about the state of the American media.

The Washington Post’s report on Obama’s speech observed that this was a controversy that “threatens to engulf his presidential candidacy.” Yet as far as anyone can tell, it was having only a marginal effect on the polls in the race before it blew up on the networks, and it was not generated by either of Obama’s political opponents, or by any particular interest groups.

No, this is a controversy cooked up almost entirely within the media realm. Once they sank their fangs into it, the whole zombielike corps of pundits, cable talking heads, and radio talk-show hosts couldn’t let go of it. And equally remarkable was the bias that was on display in discussing it: News anchors and talking heads flatly referred to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s videotaped remarks as “anti-American,” “hate-filled,” “vicious,” “offensive,” and so on and on.

It’s telling that none of them also observed that, for the most part, Wright’s remarks (aside from his conspiracist comments about AIDS, which were indeed inexcusable, but which received little or no play before Obama’s speech) were factually accurate, and deeply reflective of a reality that most African Americans live with — and which most white Americans do their best to ignore, deny, and forget. The remarks that were broadcast all over YouTube and replayed endlessly on the cable talk shows were, no doubt, were impolitic, but they were also largely true.

Hacktackular Howie Kurtz, the Post’s “media critic,” in his column today — while notably failing to critique the media for its performance — essentially admitted that this was a media-driven frenzy:

[I]t wasn’t until last week, when Fox News and ABC News bought DVDs of Wright’s sermons from the church, that the simmering controversy reached full boil. The recordings have long been sold by the church, but journalists did not seek them until now.

Kurtz’s description also encapsulates the blinkered bias that was at play in not just the discussion leading up to Obama’s speech, but in the general response to it:

To their credit, the network newscasts ran four or five sound bites to evoke Obama’s broader argument that while the anger of older blacks like Wright, 66, is understandable, the country needs to move beyond the racial wounds of the past. But Obama, 46, is trying to win the Democratic nomination, so the anchors kept returning to one core question.

“Is it enough to reassure white voters?” ABC’s Charlie Gibson asked.

“Does it make too many white voters uncomfortable?” asked CBS’s Katie Couric.

Their entire preoccupation, indeed, was with how Wright’s remarks might discomfit whites — while never examining the deeper questions of whether white complacence about race might be something worth challenging, as well as their own roles in failing to make that challenge. MUST READ ARTICLE!

It was only a few months ago that Progressives and Liberals across the country reacted in utter disgust as the MSM marginalized Dennis Kucinich, John Edwards, and Ron Paul - and whether we like it or not, it was the MSM that decided, not the American people, which candidates were acceptable to participate in the Presidential elections. Have we forgotten so fast that the MSM has been the leading purveyor of propaganda in the United States? When we examine and condemn their past behavior, why then are Americans now giving so much credibility to their obvious meddling in the election process by doing their best to promote and exacerbate the fractures that are rising within with the Democratic Party? Who ultimately benefits from the MSM “stirring the pot” and promoting an air of indecisiveness and confusion within the Democratic Party?

The answers to the above questions are obvious, and while we have to watch the news to collect some details, Liberals, Progressives, Independents, and especially Democrats need to take whatever the MSM has to offer as it pertains to Democratic candidates with a grain of salt and remember it’s been the MSM that has supported this illegal and corrupt Presidency from the beginning - and I believe they are up to their old tricks, and unfortunately, many in the electorate are buying their manipulations of the news hook, line, and sinker - without remembering who they are and what their ultimate goals are - and that’s to install another GOP President in the White House! From what I’ve been witnessing, their campaign to create unrest and disenfranchisement among Democrats is working as planned, and it’s up to the American people to wake-up and realize the MSM isn’t our “friend” - but represents the GOP by and through their corporate masters!

William Cormier

The MoneyParty (3) - Big Lies that You Must Believe

MichaelCollins — Fri, 23 Nov 2007 01:38:41 EST

Bansky

Big Lies that You Must Believe

Michael Collins
Scoop Independent News
Washington, D.C.

Because if you don't, the whole scam may fall apart.

In the first two parts of this ongoing series on The Money Party, we discussed the fact that there is only one political party in the United States, The Money Party. It has two wings, Republican and Democratic. That party represents excessive concentrations of wealth in the hands of corporations, other organizations, and individuals. They put up the money and get what they pay for every time.

They make sure that the election system is rigged to rely on money like a junkie relies on heroin. The system takes care of them. They don't have to obey the same rules that we do. Why? Because they're above the law.

The Money Party owns the mainstream media entirely. NBC is really General Electric, ABC is Disney, CBS was Viacom but now it's just the name for a mega-corporation, and Fox is News Corp., the Rupert Murdoch financial empire. That's why it's called the corporate media. They're publicity shops, "corporate communications divisions," owned and controlled by Money Party members.

Not So Compassionate

Ben Yelin — Wed, 03 Oct 2007 13:25:01 EDT

Even though people say that politicians always break promises, it is rare that these broken promises have been so explicitly laid out. President Bush, in his 2000 campaign talked about compassionate conservatism, which supposedly meant that he would be conservative, but would not eliminate government programs that help the neediest among us. Today, he did just that. Don't let the right wing megaphone fool you. The SCHIP bill, which passed with overwhelming support, isn't a path to universal health care. It isn't even enough to cover 2/3rds of the uninsured children in our country. It is also not government run health care, it is a public-private partnership. Three quarters of the SCHIP patients are covered by private insurers. So those insurance blowhards will still get their money anyway. For crying out loud, this bill is supported by the American Medical Association. The legislation is a modest step that expands a popular program to cover 8 million more children, for a fraction of the cost of the disastrous Iraq War. Today Mr. Bush silenced any of the lingering believers, who thought that Bush just might care about people.

Why did Mr. Compassionate veto this bill? There are several answers. First, he wanted to reestablish his fiscal conservative credentials, after totally blowing it during his first six years in office. Second, he has misread the bill, mistakingly thinking that it has changed eligibility, when in actuality it is only adding funding. Most importantly, however, he vetoed the bill because he believes in a strict right wing ideology. This ideology states that any Government program is fundamentally wrong but it "gives" benefits to people who somehow don't deserve them. I will never understand people like him, who don't understand the real lessons of the bible, that if you don't help the least of these brothers of mine, you are not helping me. Or better yet, love thy freaking neighbor. The President and his conservative bretheren will never understand what most people, including our founding fathers, did. That is, even if you didn't do anything to deserve it, simply by being human, you are entitled to basic rights. I think this absolutely applies to children, who through no fault of their own, do not have health insurance.

Finally, let's think about the kids who would be benefitting from the SCHIP bill. They are not poor enough to qualify for Medicaid, meaning their parents are working. Odds are, if you look at the parents' income level, they are working at blue collar jobs, putting in hours so that their family can live more comfortably. I hope everyone joins me in believing that the President's ideology is cold-hearted, at best.

You Have to be Crazy (or Bush) Not to Support Expansion of S-CHIP

Ben Yelin — Fri, 21 Sep 2007 15:43:57 EDT

Yesterday, in a display of cynicism and extreme ideological rigidity, President Bush held a press conference to say that he will Veto a bill that expands the popular S-CHIP (State Children's Health Care Program) because it will lead us to the dreaded socialized medicine that all these crazy liberals are talking about. He added that the plan raises taxes (it doesn't, unless you smoke cigarrettes) and that it covers children whose parents make as much as $83,000 a year (good!). The program is set to expire on September 30th, so the need to reauthorize is urgent. The President says he supports a reauthorization, but does not want to expand the program. Under Bush's plan, there will still not be enough money to cover all of the children eligible of SCHIP coverage.

Americans shouldn't be fooled by Bush's despicable press conference yesterday. This is a bipartisan bill that passed with a veto proof majority in the Senate. Conservative stalwarts such as Orrin Hatch and Charles Grassley adamantly support SCHIP expansion. Yet, President Bush is so tied to his market based ideology that he will be denying millions of innocent American children access to Health Insurance. This bill is not socialized medicine, though some of us wish it was. It will simply add funding to a succesful, popular program, that allows states to invest in the health of its children. Expanding coverage to lower/middle income Americans is exactly the right thing to do. Millions of middle class Americans cannot afford health insurance because they are squeezed by declining wages and high energy prices. All of this while hedge fund managers are swimming in dollar bills. It is only sensible to take this moderate action, to make sure that 13 million children are no longer punished by their parents' income level.

Even worse, Bush tried to blame this on the Democrats in Congress, saying that he wants to extend the program, while his opponents are "playing politics." Give me a break. Expanding health insurance to children in a bipartisan, cost effective way is the furthest from playing politics that you can get. Playing politics would be if you threatened to veto a bill simply because you are so fundamentally against the idea of government health care that you can't think clearly. He should be ashamed of himself. As should any member of Congress who votes to uphold the President's veto.

General Betray-Us

Ben Yelin — Mon, 10 Sep 2007 13:37:29 EDT

An opportune break in my class schedule has allowed me to watch the opening statements in the House hearing with witnesses General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. Armed Services Committee Chairman Ike Skelton started with a cordial introduction (too cordial for my taste). Next was the Chair of the Foreign Affairs Committee, holocaust survivor Tom Lantos, who gave a thoughtful opening statement in which he candidly told Petraeus that he "didn't buy" the reported "progress" in Iraq.
Then, I started to get sick. Duncan Hunter, ranking nut job on the Armed Services Committee, and Presidential not-hopeful, talked mostly about attacks on Petraeus on from the left, including Moveon.org's full page ad in the New York Times. Then the ranking member of the FA committee, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, echoed Hunter, talking more about the left's effort to undermine Petraeus, than the surge itself.        This is just so typical of conservatives. They are more angry with the left-wing backlash (which is is unfortunatley not substantial enough) than the high levels of violence in Iraq. They are ignoring what should be loud and clear: The surge is a failure, and anyone who justifies its continuation should be discredited.
The surge has not decreased sectarian violence. When General Betray-us says that sectarian strife has decreased, he is fudging the numbers. He is not including Sunni on Sunni and Shia on Shia violence, nor is he including Car bombs, which happens to be a very common occurance in Baghdad. There has been no political progress. All military progress is irrelevant for a number of reasons. First, the numbers are deflated because of how many Iraqis have fled the country. Secondly, securing one province (which is 5% of the country) will not do enough. Finally, we're just playing a game of whack-a-mole. Wherever we go, they will go attack somewhere else. All we're doing is further angering the Iraqi people, and through our actions, creating a new generation of those who want to do us harm.
    Frankly, I don't give a darn who General Petraeus is. This war wouldn't be won with General Superman. I don't care about small incremental progress in Anbar Province, or Diyala, or any other area for that matter. The strategy is fundamentally ridiculous, and the fact that we are still supposed to believe people who have been wrong about everything boggles my mind.
So when you watch the dog and pony show from Congress, step back and remember what is actually going on. The administration is using these people as puppets to fulfill their ultimate goal, which is to keep Americans dying in Iraq long enough so that they are not blamed for losing the war they started.

I Can't Believe I'm Saying This, But Gingrich is Right

Ben Yelin — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 11:15:00 EDT

As you can guess, I'm no fan of Newt Gingrich. I think he is an ethically challenged, overly partisan hack whose basic policies center around the idea of "blame the victim." I found myself surprised, then, to be in complete agreement with him the other day on the current state of Presidential campaigns. He called the modern campaign "insane" and further stated: "What's the job of the candidate in this world? The job of the candidate is to raise the money to hire the consultants to do the focus groups to figure out the 30-second answers to be memorized by the candidate. This is stunningly dangerous."

The debates, besides the one at the AFL-CIO the other day (which I actually enjoyed) , are not good for the American people. Each candidate gets to give an answer that consists of a soundbyte not related to policy, and is then quieted by an aggressive Anderson Cooper. In the post-game spin room, which Triumph the Insult Comic Dog called "poop valhalla," campaign spokesmen all claim that their candidate "won" while the mainstream media discusses who "looked most confident up there" and who was the "best dressed."

Meanwhile, candidates start campaigning 2 years before the election, meaning many of them evade their duties in Congress and spend their time seeking large donations from people for whom they will grant favors if they win the White House.

Newt is right. This is not healthy. His prescription is to eliminate campaign finance laws, so that candidates can get larger corporate donations and wouldn't have to worry as much about fundraising. I think we should do the exact opposite, for starters. Here are ways we can improve the integrity of Presidential campaigns:

-Public Financing: To end the problems of corporate influence, and the absurd notion of $1=one vote, we should outlaw campaign donations, and provide public financing. Now, so called "free speech" advocates will claim that this violates peoples first amendment rights, because, of course, money=speech (in case you didn't know, rich people have more "speech" than the rest of us). Assuming that candidates are most accountable to their donors, don't we want them to be accountable to the taxpayers and not the hedge fund managers?

-Debates of substance: The debates should be longer, and should have fewer candidates. No, we shouldn't exclude the Ron Paul's or the Mike Gravel's, but we should divide the candidates randomly so that debates can be with four candidates instead of eight. This way, candidates will have more time to debate policy, and won't be forced to reduce everything to a quick soundbite.

-Regional Primaries: There should be four regional groups which should alternate having the first primary every election cycle. This way, small homogenous states like Iowa and New Hampshire won't have disproportional influence in who our nominees are.

-Whip the media into shape: We need to get the mainstream media to not constantly focus on the "horse race," the everyday ups and downs of political candidates. The media has a responsibility to focus on the policy differences of the candidates, and not inconsequential superficialities. Therefore, after the debate, Chris Matthews needs to be put in a dark, sound proof room, away from any cameras.

-Get rid of campaign spokesman: God, these people are so annoying. You can pretty much predict what they're gonna say: "While candidate X is working on behalf of the American people, candidate Y is playing partisan politics." Really? What a shocker! I don't understand the point of these people. They are doing a disservice to America by constantly spinning the twists and turns of the campaign to their candidates' favor. I say these people should end up in the room with Chris Matthews. They can talk about why their candidate won the debate, and luckily, no one will be able to hear them.

"Urban" Parliamentary Dictionary

Ben Yelin — Tue, 31 Jul 2007 10:16:44 EDT

In response to a lot of questions I've been getting on exactly what a "Conference Report" or " Motion to recommit with instructions" is, I've decided that I should use my pathetic mastery of CSPAN lingo to educate the masses. Here is a list of parliamentary procedures in the United States Congress, complete with my real definition.

Senate

Filibuster: A chance for Southern conservatives to delay a Civil Rights Bill, or neo-cons to stop an anti-war measure from passing. Although, when you're in the minority, it can be defined as the "Thank ****ing God" rule. Unlike what you see in some movies, and what they tell you in history classes, filibusters don't consist of some old guy reading a phone book for 24 hours anymore. Now, someone will file a "cloture" (see below) motion to cut off debate, which needs 60 votes to pass. Essentially, this means that any controversial legislation in the Senate needs 60 votes, which makes things impossible to enact.

Cloture: The 60 vote threshold needed to end debate. That is why, even though a party may be in the "majority," it has very little power unless it can gather 60 votes. This rule is very nice though when you're in the minority, so we can stop things like the Flag Burning Amendment.

Motion to proceed to the motion to invoke cloture: Yeah, that really is the name for things people could be voting on.

Tabling: To table a bill or an amendment means to kill it by majority vote. So when Jim DeMint proposes that we take every dollar out of the Federal Government, we can say "shut up."

Motion to Instruct the Sargent-at-arms: This is one of my favorites. A Majority leader can invoke this rare procedure by majority vote, which would require the sargent-at-arms to physically bring people to the chamber. And you think CSPAN is NOT entertaining?

President Pro Tempore: The Vice President of the United States is constitutionally supposed to preside over the Senate, but he is too busy planning the destruction of the world. Therefore, the duty is given to the President Pro Tempore. This is usually the senior Senator from the majority party, (currently Robert Byrd of West Virginia). However, this guy is usually too frail or lazy to perform the duty himself, so he hands it off to Freshman Senators as a "hazing" ritual. Therefore, freshman in the majority party have to sit and preside over the debate (really they're probably doing crossword puzzles).

Roll Call Vote: Senators, contrary to conventional wisdom, don't all come to the floor for the vote immediately. Usually, the clerk will read all of their names to an empty chamber, and then the Senators will lazily meander to the floor when they are done with their donut. They go up to the desk and announce their vote, before immediately going back to talk with lobbyists about that special project in their state. Therefore, a process that should take a few minutes, takes a freaking half hour.

House of Representatives

"My good friend, the gentleman from Missouri": That ***hole across the aisle.

Motion to Recommit with Instructions: Usually, the House Minority can't do anything, because the rule for debating a bill is agreed to by majority vote. They are entitled to a motion to recommit, which is basically a way to add something to the bill that will either alter its meaning completely, or kill it. For example, on a bill to give Voting Rights to DC, Conservatives offered a motion to recommit that would remove DC's handgun bill. Usually these things don't pass, except when some moderates feel like they need to vote for it to save face in their district.

Speaker of the House: The Speaker of the House usually doesn't preside over the House during normal debates. She's probably too busy eating Ghiradelli Chocolates. Therefore, other House members from the Majority party get the priviledge of shutting people up, and calling on them to speak.

House and Senate:

Conference Committee: Usually, the House and the Senate pass different versions of the same bill. Probably the House's version is more extreme (as the founders intended) and the Senate has served as a cooling saucer. Thus, they must reconcile a bill in "Conference." These conferences consist of members of both parties in proportion to their membership in each chamber. Once they hammer out a compromise, both chambers vote on the final bill, called the "Conference Report." Of course, none of this will happen if one Senator prevents it. (I'm looking at you again, Jim DeMint)

Parliamentary Inquiry: A way to guise a political statement in the form of asking a question about procedure.

Point of Order: Making a point that the rules of the chamber are being broken. The presiding officer will decide if the point is valid (obviously they side with their own party, the majority). The chamber than votes on the ruling of the chair. The majority wins the vote, and members contemplate why they have wasted valuable time.

I hope this is helpful to those of you who are interested in politics, or are at least interested in a "CSPAN Drinking Game"

Top 10 Annoying Members of Congress

Ben Yelin — Fri, 27 Jul 2007 11:03:02 EDT

10. Tom Price (R-Georgia) This guy is always on the floor attacking other members and is constantly talking about "fiscal responsibility." I've never heard him present any positive ideas of his own. He is one of the chief conservative attack dogs. I think he must be a part of the "B Team" because he's never on the floor during really important debates.

9. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)-This guy holds up the appropriations process by offering tons of amendments designed to strip government programs. The bill could be something like "$1 for sad children" and this guy would oppose it.

8. Adam Putnam (R-FL) The chairman of the Republican Conference has a certain smug demeanor that makes me quite peeved. No wonder Rep. Marion Barry of Arkansas referred to him as a "Howdy-Doody Looking Nimrod." He also admitted to fabricating some Democratic "scandals" because, as he said, "we haven't gotten a break from the media since the Mark Foley scandal."

7. Tim Mahoney (D-FL) This is the guy who was elected to Mark Foley's seat in Florida and complained that he "wasn't enjoying his job" and that it is "too difficult." What an insult to all of the people who dream of being elected to Congress and never get to serve.

6. "Dr." Phil Gingrey (R-GA) This guy was a lot funnier when he had a goofy mustache, but he is most noted for his "diagnosis" of Terri Schiavo, which was completely proved false by this weird thing called "medical science." Along with Bill Frist, this guy is one of the worst doctor's in America.

5. David Dreier (R-CA) This guy is the ranking member of the Rules Committee and complains that the new Majority passes rules that don't protect the "minority's rights." I think he doesn't realize that most Americans don't really care about House procedure. He gives passionate speeches on the floor to "oppose this rule." Give me a break. Under his rule, the minority was NEVER permitted to offer amendments.

4. Steve King (R-IA) This guy is another one of the chief conservative attack dogs. He was the one who built a miniature model of a border fence and wall during the immigration debate. He also is a frequent user of the "Democrat" Party epithet.

3. Stephen Pearce (R-NM) On a bill to take money away from oil companies and invest in alternative sources of energy this guy says, " This is just another bill from the San Francisco liberal wing of the House." When did it become acceptable to openly attack an American city? That makes me so angry. And the bill's sponsor? From West Virginia.

2. Patrick McHenry (R-NC) This guy is a self-admitting agitator. I get the feeling this guy has no concern about policy and just loves to go to the floor to create a ruckus. He is always bringing up vague technicalities in bills and is one of the people who is always drumming up support for a fake scandal (such as the Pelosi "plane" incident). One of the most memorable incidents with this loser was when he tried a series of parliamentary maneuvers to try to prove that American Samoa had been exempt from the Minimum Wage bill because Del Monte Foods (whose factories are in American Samoa) are headquartered in Pelosi's district. He got quite a parliamentary smackdown from the presiding officer, the always entertaining Barney Frank. (http://youtube.com/watch?v=RWxY-5FS2Bc)

1. John Boehner (R-OH) Does it get more irritating than the fool? You have to have a lot of chutzpah to go to the house floor and cry about how "3000 people have died on 9/11 and we need to stay on offense against the terrorists," (Wow, is that just completely misleading), while then call members of your own party "wimps" for questioning the President's policy. Not to mention, it seems like everything the Congress has voted on "emboldens" the terrorists.

Michigan Dems: Defenders of the Prison Industrial Complex

ashwini — Wed, 18 Jul 2007 11:54:47 EDT

As Michigan is in a full-blown budget crisis, the Department of Corrections and Governor Granholm proposed yesterday that Camp Manistique, a prison labor camp in the Upper Peninsula, be shut down. Closing Camp Manistique, which is a minimum-security facility, would save the state $4.5 million per year. It would also cost 45 prison employees their jobs (although according to The Mining Journal, both prisoners and employees would be transferred to other facilities).

The prison employees are unionized, and they tend to vote Democrat, therefore the Dems have undertaken a full-blown campaign to keep the prison open. Prisoners currently incarcerated in Michigan, of course, cannot vote. Although shutting down Camp Manistique would not actually reduce the number of prisoners in the state, Michigan, like other states, has a detention and corrections budget spiraling out of control. Michigan’s annual prison budget is $1.9 billion, a fifth of the state’s general fund. Tom Clay from Citizens Research Council of Michigan says that if Michigan didn’t have such high rates of incarceration compared to other Great Lakes states, the prison budget would be closer to $1.4 billion. According to Families Against Mandatory Minimums, “States such as Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania have more residents than Michigan but incarcerate fewer inmates. Michigan's per-capita incarceration rate is the country's 11th-highest, ranks higher than seven other Great Lakes states and is fourth-highest among the 11 most populous states.”

The Time is Now for Universal Health Care

Eugene Resnick — Mon, 02 Jul 2007 14:53:28 EDT

Last night, at a theater in Washington DC, I saw Michael Moore's "Sicko". I left the theater with a sense of enthusiasm and passion for an issue that was dear to my heart but never was something I would write about. But now, this has changed.

It was an outrage to see the stories of these innocent people suffering under a system that doesn't want to care for people. Of course I knew that all these things were occurring but when they are placed with true-life stories it really struck a chord with me.

How is it that we, the United States of America, with all our glory and grandeur, all the hype about the land of the free and the home of the brave, all the stories of opportunity, equality, and justice under the law, all about community and how we all care about each other, all the symbolism of the Statue of Liberty and the words of Emma Lazarus uttering "Give me your tired, your weak, your huddle masses yearning to breath free," cannot provide decent health care for 1/6 of our population at all, and probably another 1/2 to 2/3 with insufficient health care? I dont understand how we think we are the best. Who are these 25-30% of the population who always poll in saying that we are on the right direction, or that we dont need universal health care? I just dont understand Americans. What is it about this country that says one things on the surface but does something completely different. Where are our family values? Family values of care, nurturance, community, and respect.

How is it that all of Western Europe and many Latin American countries offer free health care for all? For goodness sake, the country that we for decades have loathed, Cuba, has one of the best health care systems in the world! I dont understand how this is possible. We always talk about how its socialism, communism, state control, the terror! Our allies, Britain, France, all these nations offer free health care. As a consequence, they have a much higher life expectancy, they have lower rates of diabetes, heart attacks, strokes, obesity, cancer, etc etc etc etc. It is a cultural problem. Michael Moore was right. The problem is that in America, its all about me. In Europe, its all about us. This Jeffersonian ideal, which has been central to America for centuries, the American dream is individualism. Individualism is a good thing in a way. But we have taken it to a huge extreme. But where are the politicians answering the desires of the people. People in this country want universal health care - over 75%. Yet again I dont understand who those 25% are. The richest 1%, fine. The richest 5% fine. Corporate CEO's, stock holders, businessmen, executives, political officials, entrepreneurs, fine. But ladies and gentlemen, they do not encompass 25% of this country by any measure at all. Who are these people with an ideology that is completely against their own self-interest.

The culprit is this whole idea of big government vs small government. Republicans and conservatives have done a good job of scaring people away from the idea of an efficient government for and by the people. They have deliberately constructed a message that says, we want to get elected to make government smaller, so that it doesnt interfere in your lives. Its all a deception unfortunately. During the Hillary Clinton health care reform crisis of the 1990s, Republicans charged she wanted to socialize medicine. Whats next, they asked? A command economy and a hammer and sickle replacing the stars on the American flag? Fear won. Yet it is 2007 and we are the only industrialized nation with no universal health care plan.

I will digress and say for a moment that our lack of a universal health care system directly impacts every aspect of society. Its plain and simple. Because of this broken system, our people die, spend large sums of money on medicines, and create a pill-popping culture. Have a headache? Go to CVS. Have a soar throat? Go to CVS. OVer the counter medications are the new American candies. Europeans, Latin Americans and Asians dont nearly consume as much medicine as we do. Think about it. No universal health care = no doctor to see because you cant afford one = over the counter medication alternative with no prescription necessary = more money for drug companies. Why do we have grossely obese people in the millions in this country. That is downright disgusting and we are completely to blame. Look at our diets. Look at our eating habits and working habits. Its a deeper cultural problem not just a systemic one.

How do we find it acceptable that people do not have money for treatment and die? What kind of country is this? Shame on this country. Universal health care should be a right not a privilege. A country is better off if the people are healthy and strong, we all know that, so why dont we take care of our most needed. Is it a racial issue? I doubt it considering most of the people in Moore's movie were white. Then what is the problem? It is completely disgusting that we don't provide adequate health care for 9/11 workers. These people and many like them should be at political speeches, conventions, debates, and on primetime news telling their stories and educating the public on this issue. It is a pressing issue. They should be put on stage at the Democratic National Convention next year to tell their stories. Unbelievable. How can we let someone die of cancer because their insurance company denied them money for chemotherapy. How is that not murder? Where is the "pro-life" in that? Republicans talk so much about being "pro-life" and that "every life is unique and special." Why don't they actually adhere to that stance? Ridiculous.

By looking at Britain, we can see that the government cares about the health and well-being of its citizens. Why dont we? Why do we let drug companies do this? Who are these people voting for Republicans and some Democrats who continue to pander to these companies?Who are these people? I can assure you they dont know a thing about the issue. We are the most depressed country in the West. No wonder the drug companies want to keep it that way. I am surprised our collective body hasnt grown immune to these drugs already. Drugs should not be nearly as expensive as they are in this country yet we allow it.

Thank goodness we have reached a political consensus in this country where all the Democrats agree on this issue. The Republicans will go down in defeat on this issue yet why do people still vote for people like this? How, I just dont understand. I really want to know who those 30% opposition faction is in every poll.

Are people opposed to using their taxdollars to fund other people's health care? Dont they understand that it works both ways. You pay into the system a fraction, but you get back a huge reward. Same goes for free education.

It is time we have a universal health care plan. Lets actually join the rest of the highly industrialized world and live up to our status as a superpower.

The Latest Dem Debate

Josh Eidelson — Sun, 01 Jul 2007 00:23:30 EDT

Is it just me, or was the difference between the questions asked and the questions answered more pronounced in this debate than the previous ones? Maybe because the questions asked the candidates to speak about the extent of racism in America or its role in exacerbating social ills. Maybe the most marked contrast was when the candidates were asked why Blacks with high school degrees are less likely to find jobs than Whites without them; most of the answers were about how to get more Blacks high school degrees.

The order of the candidates led to the delightful spectacle of Chris Dodd making funny faces every round about having to follow Mike Gravel saying something about how craven and nasty everyone else on stage was. And it gave Barack Obama repeated chances to echo John Edwards, one time even saying he was finishing his sentence - does that mean he doesn't take Edwards seriously as a threat at this point?

The biggest revelation of the night though was that Joe Biden organizes rallies for Black men to tell them they can be manly while wearing condoms. When I say progressive masculinity, you say Joe Biden! Where's YouTube when you need it? Someone should name a line of condoms after the guy.

The Ground Truth screening with CP and AU.

ODUMarc — Thu, 19 Apr 2007 08:13:25 EDT

On Monday, April 23, Campus Progress and American University will join forces on the AU campus to show the screening of "The Ground Truth," to highlight the true costs of the war in Iraq.

It's also supported by the United Methodist Chaplaincy.

The idea is that if we highlight the truths about the war in Iraq, and its cost and effects, more people would take a stand on the war. This is an effective way to raise conciousness about the war, as well as mobilize and motivate student activists to act and takea a standa against the war.

The "Wear Some Black" campaign was started by Emily Willard at American University. The idea behind that is to wear a button that says, "Wear Some Black Until the Troops Are Back," (or any sort of black at all) as a way to get the conversations moving and started about the deep wounds of war, its fiscal and human tolls.

A great deal of other schools have jumped on board with this, to include Old Dominion University. While the College Democrats here are the leaders in putting this together, some College Republicans members have also shown interest in making this a bi-partisan campaign.

The vision for this is to reach across party lines and work toward a dialogue and open-and-honest discussion about the Iraq war. It is my hope that every school in America will be on board with this campaign. If such anti-war sentiments change America's visions in the '60s, such changes are also possible now.

Anyhow, you're invited to this event. If you're interested in "Wear Some Black" campaign, we also need you.

The link to the facebook invitation is below. If you don't have facebook, shoot its organizer, Emily Willard, an e-mail at emily.willard@american.edu

Jefferson-Jackson Dinner Overview

Eugene Resnick — Sun, 18 Feb 2007 21:59:15 EST

The annual Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Richmond, Virginia took place yesterday February 17, 2007 in the Greater Richmond Convention Center amid what was declared as the largest JJ Dinner in Virginia history with over 3,000 guests. Last year's JJ dinner was also a milestone but it only featured 1,400 guests, an indication that the Democratic Party of Virginia is on a roll in 2007, 2008 and beyond. The insider pundits in VA have never been more energized as Virginia Democrats have salivated over the recent domination of the governorship from Mark Warner (2001-2005) and current Governor Tim Kaine (2005-2009). Unfortunately Tim Kaine is constitutionally barred from running for a second term but Democratic party activists in the state are already preparing for the 2009 race with talks of defeated Attorney General candidate from the 5th district Creigh Deeds running as his replacement.

With the victory of Senator Jim Webb last November, Democrats in Virginia have officially designated Virginia as a "purple state" and rightfully so. Northern Virginia, outside the suburbs of greater Washington, DC is exploding with economic and population growth. This region is also a hotbed of growing progressive political leanings. At the JJ Dinner featuring speakers Mark Warner, Tim Kaine, Congressman Bobby Scott and Senator Jim Webb, all were in attendance to endorse the candidacy of Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama. This was Obama's first campaign visit to Virginia and the first endorsement from a sitting governor. As Virginia becomes a critical battleground state in 2008, this endorsement is significant.

Senator Obama's speech was poignant and well received by the audience. He frequently referred to education, his life story, and his message and motif of the "audacity of hope" which reverberated well with the crowd. Although it was interesting to see the various Edwards and Hillary supporters in the crowd who came just to see the show, over 25 University of Virginia Democrats came to volunteer at the event to show their support for the rising young star in the Democratic Party. It is worth noting also that there was much speculation at the event that if Obama were to win the Democratic primaries, former governor Mark Warner would be an unbeatable choice for Vice President forming a ticket that would crush any Republican ticket. Warner's enthusiasm, charm, and Bill Clinton-esque personality and political leanings would serve Obama well in Virginia which has a more moderate Democratic Party than say Hillary Clinton's New York base.

All in all, the dinner was a huge success for Barack Obama. His rising popularity among Democratic primary voters seems only to grow as the field of the Hillary, Edwards, and Obama triumvirate travel the country trying to prove to Democrats and all Americans alike that they are the best candidate to move the country forward, end the war in Iraq, enact universal health care by 2012, and promote economic fairness. It seems from my observations at the College Democrats of America National Leadership Summit, the Democratic National Committee's Winter Meeting, and the Jefferson-Jackson Dinner that the 2008 Democratic candidates are the strongest and most diverse group of candidates that the Democrats have ever seen in American history. This is a testament to not only the changing face of the party but also of society as the possibility of a female or black president becomes ever-more on the horizon of reality.

Published: February 18, 2007