> Walkin' into Politics

The weekend of Sept. 23, remarks were made at the United Nations regarding the character of President Bush. Hugo Chavez, the president of Venezuela, gave a speech to the General Assembly in which he characterized Bush as “the devil.”

“The devil came here yesterday,” Chavez spouted. “Yesterday the devil came here. Right here. And it smells of sulfur still today.”

One of my biggest pet peeves in the world of politics is when a politician is so hypocritical that it becomes almost comical when they get caught in one of their hypocrisies (if not for the seriousness of the situation). Take a look, for example, at Rep. Mark Foley, a Republican congressman from Florida.

Foley was a chairman on the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children. He helped write much of the legislation that we know of today regarding sexual predators on the Internet. But now, it’s been discovered that Foley himself has solicited underage Congressional pages through online cyber-sex. The man even had cyber-sex while the House floor was in the middle of a vote.

This November may mark a turning point in congressional politics. The Democrats, after 10 years of losing power, may finally regain control of the House of Representatives. They may even be able to regain the Senate, taking back both houses of Congress.

This would be monumental.

In the first two weeks of October while we have lived in relative comfort — watching the leaves change as we slowly approach shorter days and colder nights — 58 American soldiers have been killed in Iraq. If things continue at this pace, October 2006 will be the bloodiest month for coalition troops since January of 2005.

As for the Iraqis themselves, 708 have died in those two weeks. Since April of 2005, the average death toll for Iraqis had been 27 per day. In October, it is 44. On Monday, Oct. 16, Iraqis saw 91 of their own die in a single day.

With the Democrats now in control of the U.S. Congress, many now wonder: what next? One talking point common for conservatives prior to the election was that, once in power, the Democrats will offer us nothing, and if they do plan on offering us anything, it will be higher taxes.

That is, in fact, untrue: tax plans by the Democrats (if they’re smart) would only affect the wealthiest of Americans. Indeed, as part of John Kerry’s presidential campaign, he offered to keep Bush’s tax cuts in place for Americans making less than $200,000 a year. As for other ideas, the Democrats offer many.

Progressive Sen. Russ Feingold has done many things for both the state of Wisconsin and the United States of America.

He was the only senator to vote against the PATRIOT Act. After President Bush refused to change his domestic spying program into one where congressional oversight would be utilized, Feingold sponsored a motion to censure him for his blatant disregard of the American people’s right to privacy.

I am not ashamed to be from Wisconsin. I now see many Facebook groups that several have now joined saying just the opposite. I understand their frustration and respect their choice voice it.

I, too, was upset with the results of Wisconsin's gay marriage ban referendum, and I will continue to support gay rights in this state despite the uphill battle it will probably become.

President Bush is not thinking clearly or, at the very least, he is formulating ideas four years later than he should be. His latest attempt at being a “wartime president” — his so-called “surge” (a nicer way of saying “escalation”) — was seriously needed years ago, but denied by the president due to his unforgiving stubbornness.

At this point, a surge of 20,000 troops will do little good regarding what is needed in Iraq. What exactly is needed in Iraq? Responsibility of the Iraqi citizens themselves.

The words “global warming” can be misleading, especially during winter in Wisconsin. Nothing about an 8 a.m. walk to school will show evidence of any “warming.” Frozen mucus and salt-entrenched shoes are hardly signs of change in our earth’s temperature, especially towards a sense of warmness.

A more proper term to use would be “global climate change” because essentially, that’s what it is. Not every spot on earth is becoming warmer due to global climate change; in fact, some places are getting cooler.

Presidential assertions of military power have been made since the founding of our Constitution. Even George Washington himself asserted power by ending the Whiskey Rebellion with the then-young American military.

But when the president oversteps his reach, it has not been uncommon for Congress to limit his powers to some extent. For instance, during the fall of the Nixon presidency, Congress reasserted its position in war policy by issuing the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which required Congressional approval for outstanding military conflicts lasting longer than 60 days.

The hysteria surrounding Sen. Barack Obama is interesting to say the least: Obama is the son of a white mother and an African father, and his potential for being the Democratic candidate for president would make him the first African-American to reach the nomination in either of the two major parties.

Aside from his background, the man has some great ideas, a steady withdrawal from Iraq and universal healthcare among them.

Last week, the Kansas state board of education voted 6-4 against the teaching of intelligent design within public schools. The vote means that, in one of the more conservative states in the nation, intelligent design can no longer be taught as a theory alongside evolution within science classrooms.

Creationism in schools was outlawed nationally by a 1987 Supreme Court ruling that made it illegal to teach religious views in the classroom. However, creationists maintain that intelligent design is different when compared to creationism in that it doesn“t specifically say who or what the creator is. By just saying that “something” intelligent created the different species of animals in the world, the “science” avoids affiliation with any religion.

Last week, the United States Senate was denied the chance to deliberate on a resolution condemning President George W. Bush“s proposed surge of 20,000 troops to Iraq.

In order for the deliberations to commence, 60 members of the Senate must vote to kick off the debate within the chamber. Only 56 votes were cast to do that, 49 from Democrats and seven from Republicans.

There has been a lot of talk lately about making the vaccine that protects women against human papillomavirus (HPV), a sexually transmitted disease that can cause cervical cancer, mandatory.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry, for example, has already made an executive order that would require girls entering sixth grade to receive the shot. A vaccine that protects women from cancer is very promising “ the less cancer out there the better, most would argue.

Freedom of speech is a principle that I value greatly. I truly believe that people should be allowed to freely express whatever they want, especially if it is speech that demonstrates an idea that the speaker is trying to convey.

Free speech is necessary in a democracy; it allows citizens the right to express to one another how we feel about issues, what we think is the best direction our government should take, and so forth.

Id like to think that most people consider me an optimist, despite what you may read here on a weekly basis. Im the kind of guy who looks for the silver lining, who always tries to find the good things in life whenever bad things happen.

But I was never optimistic about the Iraq War. I am sure that there are good things happening and our troops over there are doing wonderful things for the people of Iraq. For the most part, I view the war as a complete disaster. I know I am not alone in having this view: nearly two out of every three Americans share it.

Last week, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson signed into law a bill that would allow critically ill patients in his state to receive controlled dosages of medicinal marijuana.

Though 11 other states already have similar laws on the books, Richardson is unique in signing the bill because he is a Democratic presidential contender; signing a controversial bill like this would be damaging in the eyes of most aspiring presidential candidates.

U.S. Senate Majority Leader, Harry Reid (D-NV), has come under fire as of late for comments he made regarding the status of the war in Iraq.

I believe, he said, that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and [the president know] this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq.

A new study released recently has announced that the year 2006 saw a rise in terrorist attacks and deaths from the previous year, with attacks rising 25 percent and deaths from attacks rising 40 percent.

This statistic is enough to alarm even the most apathetic among us. People may wonder if our country is losing the war on terror. But the statistic is misleading without some background.

Did the Iraq war troop surge succeed? Many newspapers and media moguls, including those traditionally considered supporters of liberal ideals, have touted the surge as a success. These pundits contend that the “lower” troop death-count in July for American forces as well as a newfound security in Baghdad are signs that the surge is working.

Hillary Clinton would not make the best president, at least in my eyes. To me, she is an opportunistic politician who happens to share MOST of my political beliefs, but panders towards the center (perhaps even towards the right), in order to garner more votes. This is a brilliant political strategy that will undoubtedly get her elected.

What do you think when you hear a politician say the following?

“National security is more important than the Republican Party or the Democratic Party and to use it to try and get someone elected will ultimately end up in defeat and disaster for that political party.”

On Sunday, Sept. 8, the Democratic Party held a debate between its presidential contenders. The usual things were discussed – Iraq and immigration, among other things – but something was different about this debate that set it apart from the others.

It was broadcast almost entirely in Spanish.

Those seeking an alternative to Jim Sensenbrenner as congressional representative in Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District, listen up: Democrat or Republican, you have a choice.

This election year, a dual and bipartisan effort to unseat the incumbent (who has held the seat since 1979), is taking place in our own backyard.

October 1 is an important day in American history, though it is often overlooked. On this day in 1957, the phrase “In God We Trust” was first seen on American paper currency. By the same act of Congress in 1956 that placed it on money, this phrase also became the nation’s first official motto, though E Pluribus Unum was considered an unofficial one prior to this act.

Why is this important? As a Christian myself, the words don’t bother me. Do I believe that God is watching over America? Yes, but I also believe that he/she/it is watching over other countries as well.

Last week, President Bush vetoed a bill that would grant health care to millions of children across the nation. The bill would have called for $35 billion over five years to a child health care program already in place. Meanwhile, Bush and his Republican allies are seeking $190 billion dollars for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This veto has come at a very appropriate time. There has been much talk lately (among presidential candidates, filmmakers and everyday Americans alike) about instituting a single-payer health care system in the United States, for children as well as for adults. Such a system would ensure that every American could gain access to health care coverage, regardless of their ability to pay for insurance or not.

This may come as a surprise (since I write about liberal causes and ideas week-in and week-out), but the fact of the matter is, despite it being detrimental to gaining a liberal voice in the medium of radio, I do not support the Fairness Doctrine.

For those of you who don’t know what this is, here’s a brief history. The Fairness Doctrine was created in 1949 by the federal government and upheld by the Supreme Court in 1969, and essentially calls for a balance within media in regards to political content.

American patriotism is a wonderful thing. I, in fact, consider myself to be an American patriot. I am proud to be a part of the great experiment our forefathers began over 230 years ago, and cherish the freedom, democracy and liberty that were bestowed upon me simply by being a citizen.

I am also cautious not to be blind to things our nation does that may be reprehensible. These things may not have been done by Americans themselves, but rather by the government we have elected. That point should be recognized first and foremost – the government, not necessarily the people, make the mistakes.

When a current presidential candidate raises over $4 million dollars in a single day, you’d think that this candidate is a strong one, able to win the nomination of his party without any trouble at all. You’d be wrong.

For those of you unfamiliar with him, the candidacy of Ron Paul is sort of a strange phenomenon. To many, he represents the balance between both Republican conservativism and Democratic liberalism. To others, the very mention of his name causes an automatic eye roll.

The word “impeachment” sends a tingly sensation of joy down the spine of any die-hard anti-Bush enthusiast. On the other end of the spectrum, you can usually expect a roll of the eyes from a die-hard conservative who still supports the president (though they are thinning in numbers).

Recently, Democratic Representative and Presidential hopeful Dennis Kucinich submitted a resolution to Congress calling for the impeachment of Vice President Dick Cheney. That resolution was placed in committee, effectively killing it for now.

There has been a lot of talk among the presidential candidates about the implementation of a “Fair Tax.” Such a program would institute a national sales tax of 23 percent in place of the current federal tax system we have – no more IRS, no more income taxes, or any other taxes for that matter, from the government... just a national sales tax.

Plus, because sales taxes are inherently regressive – that is, they place a stronger burden on the poor than they do on the rich – the Fair Tax plan would also call for “prebates” to be given out to lower-income individuals to compensate for the higher sales tax.

It’s astonishing that this debate is even being brought up. Yet recently, and with all the attention of the presidential election focused on Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, the media in America has posed the following question: Is race or is gender more important in selecting the next presidential nominee?

Barack Obama, an African-American, would be the first non-white nominee of either of the two major parties – and the first non-white president should he win the election in November. This would be a huge milestone, over 50 years after the start of the Civil Rights Movement, indicative of a shift in attitudes regarding race in America.

“If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all of your contacts.” So begins a chain letter email accusing Barack Obama of being a radical Muslim bent on taking America down from the inside, among many other things.

A long-lasting relic of pre-Civil War mentality remains within our presidential electoral process: the Electoral College.

Long ago, when worry over large states dominating the influence of politics over the smaller states was prevalent, the founding fathers created a compromise – the national election for president would allow states to select electors to choose the president. The number of electors per state would be dependent upon a state’s population in proportion to the rest of the nation. Thus, the apportionment used in determining the number of congressional representatives for a given state was used in determining the number of electors that state would receive.

The election results of Super Tuesday yielded different outcomes for each of the two major political parties. For the Republicans, it’s clear that John McCain is the front-runner, and now the probable nominee (with Mitt Romney recently dropping out) despite the objections of the conservative wing of the GOP.

For the Democrats, the race changed very little – Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are both still contenders in an extremely close campaign, rare for a nomination cycle that usually creates a known candidate by the second or third week of primaries, if not earlier.

What is of more importance: your right to speak and exchange ideas freely or the Student Association’s (SA) right to suppress criticism?

Our “beloved” student government legislature recently passed a bill aimed at stifling criticism within the boundaries of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Fortunately, our student representatives came to their senses and did not vote to override a veto of the bill, despite the fact that 10 of them saw fit to vote in favor of that same act just one week ago.

There seems to be no end in sight.

After winning ten state primaries and caucuses straight, Barack Obama is not only the frontrunner in the Democratic candidate race, but may also be the final nominee should Hillary Clinton do poorly in the next two races (Ohio and Texas, March 4). Without those wins, Clinton has only one other option: the superdelegates.

In this presidential year, with so much at stake, it may be prudent to bring up an influential political theory regarding the presidency. Developed by political scientist Stephen Skowronek, this theory, called the presidential regime theory, asserts that different presidential leaders who assert a new premise of governance (called “regime leaders”) appear upon the departure of unpopular and weak presidents belonging to outdated regimes of years past.

For example, Franklin Roosevelt – who pushed forward several policies collectively known as the New Deal that dramatically changed how we feel about government’s role in society – followed the disastrous presidency of Herbert Hoover, who was part of a “regime” of presidents that represented strong capitalistic economics within society with limited government interference.

“God Damn America!” The words echoed throughout the nation, on cable news outlets, political websites and chain letters alike. Were these the rantings of any other preacher, the words would be seen as deplorable, but would be soon forgotten by the public with the coming of another indecency.

I’ve read many articles in the past week spinning the latest presidential primary election in Pennsylvania, with most of them asking this simple question: Why can’t Barack Obama “close the deal” with Hillary Clinton and begin focusing on Republican candidate John McCain?

The answer isn’t so obvious. As Democrats, we’d like to believe that it was simply because we have two amazing candidates that are worth examining to the bitter end.

Free speech and press freedom are two ideals that every American citizen should be proud to have constitutionally protected. Yet the Student Association (SA) and its members here at UWM don’t seem to agree.

The SA recently decided that the UWM Leader deserved yet another fund cut. Earlier this semester, lacking sufficient funding the Leader was forced to become an internet-exclusive publication. Unlike the Post, the Leader relies upon segregated fees to run. Removal of more fees can mean a potential continuation of the publication being produced solely online.