We hope all of your summers are going well! Below, we have a list of summer opportunities. If you are free and would like something to do, check one of them out! As always, if you have any questions, email us and we’ll be sure to help you out anyway we can!

Attorney General Campaign Summer Internships Available!

Sean Coffey for New York State Attorney General 2010
Sean is a retired Navy Captain, successful lawyer, and proud Democrat.  He is also the only true outsider in the race, having never before been elected or appointed to political office.  Intern opportunities include meeting with volunteers, working with community organizations, and using the voter file to track and manage volunteers.  Interns should also be comfortable working on projects on their own and able to excel in a fast paced environment. An ideal candidate will be able to commit to 40 hours per week but hours and dates are flexible. For more information on Sean or any of his platforms, visit Coffey2010.com.
To apply, please send an email to Ian McKeige at ianm@coffey2010.com, with a brief resume attached.

Check out the pictures of Kaley and Allison Tabling and Marilyn and Sophia’s cookies!

The cause: New York’s Reproductive Health Act.

The issue:  This is a very technical statute, so it’s especially important to get the message across clearly.  And what does that take? CREATIVITY. Using bright colors and catchy (we hope!) slogans, we’re trying to convey to stressed out students that the RHA, though decidedly unsexy, is necessary.  RHA takes rights that are currently stated only negatively and states them positively.  In the current criminal code, abortion is codified only as an exception to homicide law. In other words, murder is illegal except in the case of a fetus.  This makes it difficult for potential abortion providers to determine whether or not an abortion is legal, even though Roe v. Wade protects the fundamental right to an abortion. The statute would reframe the protection of abortion into a positive guarantee of the right to an abortion.  It would do the same thing with a woman’s right to use or refuse birth control.

Nothing too radical, right?  But extremely important, for women, for health care providers, and, most importantly, for shifting the discourse on women’s reproductive health away from a discussion that stigmatizes a woman’s right to choose.  That’s a pretty big project for a bunch of kids sitting around in a dorm painting signs.  But, from our proclamation of CHOICE! CHOICE! CHOICE! to our commitment to “Cut through the Red Tape on a Woman’s Right to Choose,”  we’re taking it one step at a time.

To be honest, in its eight year run in the White House, the Republican Party did not demonstrate the greatest grasp of truth (truthiness, on the other hand…). But hey, squeaking to 270 in presidential elections has made both parties claim bizarre things (on the Democratic side, see JFK’s use of the entirely nonexistent missile gap in the runup to 1960). Yet, if the past few days are any guide, the fragile relationship between today’s GOP and basic facts seems to be at an all-time low.

The cabinet official: The former Treasury Secretary released his memoir this week, ready to reshape the narrative of the financial collapse to his liking. As Simon Johnson points out over at TNR, though, it doesn’t take long to suspect something’s a little off on his narration. According to Paulson, ““I was convinced we were due for another disruption” while working in government, yet he never did anything to forestall it while working at one of Wall Street’s most powerful banks. He also leaves out his $100 million bonus for moving from Goldman to Wall Street, and claims at the end that ““the Wall Street I knew had come to an end,” even though every behavioral indicator seems to indicate Wall Street’s well on its way back to its bloated best. It really says everything about today’s leaders that, since Paulson “keeps no notes and never uses email,” he can say pretty much whatever he wants.

The “pundit”: Glenn Beck – you knew the blackboard blowhard would make an appearance. His latest claim, from yesterday’s edition of his radio show, is that the census’s questions on race are an attempt to “increase slavery.” Somehow, according to Beck, the race question was in evidence in 1790 to count the slave population as 3/5ths, and now it is being used to funnel government towards minority programs. “At least in 1790, they were doing it to slow the South down on slavery,” he told his listeners, “To try to stop it as much as they can. Today they are asking the race question to try to increase slavery. No way, don’t answer that question.” Not only is the historical analogy completely wrong (the 3/5ths clause was inserted to get the South to sign that Constitution Beck claims to care so much about), but Beck’s suggestion not to answer the race question would lead to his listeners to being undercounted, strengthening those minority programs he hates. Whoops.

The wonk: Finally, GOP congressman Paul Ryan – considered one of his party’s brightest policy minds – last month released his own budget roadmap, which he claimed would balance the budget and lower taxes…at the same time! Conservatives everywhere squealed with delight. Unfortunately, as Matt Yglesias highlighted today, there are two  rather major problems with this promise: first, it wouldn’t balance the budget, instead pushing government debt to Greece-levels and beyond (sidenote: the CBO didn’t catch this when they scored Ryan’s plan because they had to take his estimate at face value. What the?). Second, in an admirable trick, despite cutting taxes overall, only the top 10% would pay fewer taxes under Ryan’s plan. The top 1% would pay 15% less while the bottom 20% were paying 12% more.

Still, it’s nice to see party members that deserve each other.

Late last month, Obama’s well-crafted State of the Union, and his successful appearance at the House GOP’s conference in Baltimore went a long way to reversing the momentum Republicans gained from Scott Brown’s special election success and health care’s near failure. Of all of Obama’s counterattacks, few were better received than when Obama pounced on Republican hypocrisy on the stimulus: after admonishing the GOP in the State of the Union that “the responsibility to govern is now yours as well,” he reminded them in Baltimore that  “a lot of you have gone to appear at ribbon cuttings for the same projects that you voted against.”

Three weeks later, it’s more clear than ever that this line of attack, even more than the White House’s (welcome) return to populism, is the secret to combating the Republican Party this fall. For awhile now, liberal outlets, especially ThinkProgress and Rachel Maddow, have been covering the GOP’s game of bashing the stimulus while in Washington and then trumpeting its benefits in their home districts; ThinkProgress’s latest report counts over 110 different representatives and senators who’ve pulled this stunt, including “leaders” like Eric Cantor, John Boehner, and Mitch McConnell. That’s more than half of the GOP representation in Washington; it is now literally easier to make a list of Republicans in Washington who aren’t hypocrites. Even conservative outlets are starting to take notice: recently, both the Washington Times and the Wall Street Journal have written articles highlighting GOP hypocrisy. In addition, if this weekend’s Sunday talk shows were any guide, it will be difficult for Republicans to criticize the stimulus in public without being pushed on their private requests for funding.

Building on this argument is key to Democratic victory in the fall not just because it demonstrates the Republican Party’s disinterest in sticking to their own principles, but because it clearly demonstrates the positive job-building effects of the stimulus. Despite the stimulus having created over 1.5 million jobs, only six percent of Americans currently believe the stimulus created any jobs at all. Reversing this perception requires redoubling efforts to put evidence of the recovery in front of the voters, and, for that issue, there’s no better weapon to use against the GOP than their own words.

Welcome to debate on Guantanamo Bay!

Debating for the Dems: Sarah and Jeanine!

(8:09) Republicans open – these are enemy combatants, don’t deserve civilian rights

(8:10) Democrats Opening: Guantanamo Bay and testimony does not aid in America’s national security. The information is often false. We’ve betrayed the values upon which this country has been founded.

(8:18) Is the right to Habeus Corpus for all constitutional? is it statutory? Republicans are arguing that enemy combatants are not given the right to Habeus Corpus, citing laws surrounding prisoners of war. Dems disagree

(8:20) Republicans ask: If Guantanamo Bay closes, do you honestly think that one less person will be recruited to Al Qaeda? Dems had argued that Guantanamo Bay harms US national security by providing a recruiting point for terrorist organizations. Audience starts to react to the debate by nodding emphatically.

(8:25) Oops – Republicans just said that they don’t care how prisoners are treated…..

(8:26) Republicans argue that we should turn to other alternatives. We should bring in Human Rights groups and open it to more Media access. Dems ask if they are being truly humane and Republicans argue that the debate is over whether the Guantanamo Bay should be closed – not whether torture is ok. That torture is wrong is (thankfully) a bipartisan opinion on this campus.

(8:34) Should sleep deprivation and solitary confinement be used? Republicans say yes. It does not leave permanent physical damage.

(8:36) What should happen? Dems: They need to have a trial and should either be released or convicted. Republicans: These detainees have important information and that is the issue with these solutions.

(8:40) Question is “name a piece of credible intelligence from Gitmo” – Republicans say they can’t name one but there has been claims that terrorist attacks have been stopped. Democrats cite military officials that claim that no credible evidence has been found.

(8:43) Should enemy combatants be read their miranda rights? Dems say that they need to clarify what the battlefield is here. On a battlefield, you need to do it in all reasonable speed. But in places like chicago O’Hare where Padilla was taken, this is no problem. Republicans say we should not give them to civilian rights.

(8:46) Good question from the Republicans – people kill Americans for everything from giving women voting rights to Guantanamo bay. When does it stop? Great Dems answer: When something makes someone hate us, that is not cause enough. But when it violates our principles and contributes to people hating us, then it should be stopped.

(8:50) How do we classify enemy combatants? Republicans don’t answer the question, but Democrats reinforce it.

Hey folks!

We’ve got a room full of people, starting to get excited about the state of union. Some people have wandered in wearing their vintage 2008 Obama for President t-shirts but regardless of how people are dressed, the largest room in our student center is filled to the brim with people waiting for the address.

I hadn’t realized that the State of the Union was an event that you went early to, but 25 minutes before show time and there are no seats in the house. There is also no more pizza, and in this Dem’s opinion the new Dominos recipe isn’t much better than the last.

(9:05) We always know that Republicans tend to follow the trend rather than lead them. Now, following Nancy Pelosi’s lead today, the Republicans are responding to the State of the Union before the speech even starts. Seems sort of like a preemptive response, but perhaps they’ll argue that it was, in fact, preventative.

(9:06) The floor, and the Columbia Satow room, breaks out in applause as President Obama is announced. Now… we’ll take a 20 minute applause break as we take a moment to watch Obama shake the hands of 535 people…

(9:11) President Obama is starting his speech – took a lot less time than I thought it might!

(9:16) “the numbing weight of our politics.” Thank you to President Obama for reminding us of the common goals and hopes that we have regardless of our politics. In my own discussions with Republicans, it isn’t as though we aren’t working for a better American future. We just have different ways to get there. Please, Congress, remember that as well.

(9:17) “It is time the American government gets a government that matches their decency”…. Biden was a little too enthusiastic on the clapping there. So was the rest of the Columbia watch party. I think that the room may be more entertained by Vice-President Biden than the speech.

(9:25) Job must be our #1 focus – gets the first standing ovation from both sides of the asile tonight. We should start in new small businesses (this means we need health care folks…)

(9:30) Second bipartisan standing ovation – take tax credits. Then ensued the House vs. Senate cheering contest. Despite their lower numbers, I’d say the Senate wins (Can we get that kind of enthusiasm for passing legislation?).

(9:32) I will not accept second place for the United States of America (Preview of the olympics?). Slowing down policy only allows other countries to catch up, Obama argues. Moves quickly to the dire need of financial reform. House has passed it, Senate now needs to pass it. I can’t think of a more important issue right now.

(9:36) “and I know that there are those who disagree with the overwhelming scientific evidence on climate change. But even if you doubt the evidence, providing incentives for energy efficiency and clean energy are the right thing to do for our future – because the nation that leads the clean energy economy will be the nation that leads the global economy. And America must be that nation.” Loudest cheer from Columbia thus far erupts in the Satow room

(9:42) “And let’s tell another one million students that when they graduate, they will be required to pay only ten percent of their income on student loans, and all of their debt will be forgiven after twenty years – and forgiven after ten years if they choose a career in public service.” As may be expected from a college watch party, we had our first group of people standing up this year.

(9:45) First Lady Obama tells everyone to “Sit Down.” President Obama says she gets embarrassed.

(9:48) This room is wondering why the Republicans give a standing ovation when Obama solicits other strategies to health care reform. Have they proposed a plan yet?

(9:51) Announces 3 year budget freeze. No more tax cuts for those making over $250,000 a year.

(9:54) In the general theme of Obama laying down the law on the Senate, Obama announces an executive commission that the Senate has said no to

(9:57) “To do that, we have to recognize that we face more than a deficit of dollars right now. We face a deficit of trust – deep and corrosive doubts about how Washington works that have been growing for years. To close that credibility gap we must take action on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue to end the outsized influence of lobbyists; to do our work openly; and to give our people the government they deserve.”

(10:01) New title for the State of the Union: Senate Smackdown

(10:03) “Just saying no to everything may be good short-term politics, but it’s not leadership. We were sent here to serve our citizens, not our ambitions. So let’s show the American people that we can do it together.”

(10:12) Aside from Columbia school policy, some people are wondering why they didn’t find the State of the Union drinking game before we showed up…

(10:14) Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. It’s time to end it.

(10:18) “But I also know this: if people had made that decision fifty years ago or one hundred years ago or two hundred years ago, we wouldn’t be here tonight. The only reason we are is because generations of Americans were unafraid to do what was hard; to do what was needed even when success was uncertain; to do what it took to keep the dream of this nation alive for their children and grandchildren.”

(10:20) “We are strong. We are resilient. We are American.”

Republican Response:

Just for transparency’s sake: the Columbia University College Democrats really don’t like Bob McDonnell. He broke our undefeated record in our campaign trips as we campaigned for Creigh Deeds this semester. So, we really dislike him.

(10:34) “We want cooperation, not partisanship.” Pardon me, but I think that the Democrats have been calling for bipartisanship the whole time…

(10:35) “the GOP welcomes your ideas on facebook and twitter.” Thank you to the GOP for asking for ideas…. as long as you can fit them in 140 characters

(10:37) “A child’s educational opportunity should be determined by her intellect and work ethic, not by her zip code.”

(10:40) “Here at home government must help foster a society in which all our people can use their God-given talents in liberty to pursue the American Dream. Republicans know that government cannot guarantee individual outcomes, but we strongly believe that it must guarantee equality of opportunity for all”

The crowd here wonders if that was Governor McDonnell’s normal speech writer. It did not seem to carry the cadence he normally does. All in all, however, good speech.

- That’s all folks!

I now have a former Cosmo model as my US Senator.

Was it a referendum on healthcare? Partially. On Obama? Probably.

Was it the candidate’s fault? The state’s? The administration’s? Yeah, sure, if it makes you feel better to dole out some blame, it was a little of everybody’s fault.

But basically, this race was just a version (condensed, over-spun, nastier) of the battle we have been fighting for what seems like forever. It wasn’t about terrorist trials in civilian courts, or about the public option, or about the candidates’ genders. Of course, it was about all that, at least a little bit, because all of those issues fall within the broader conflict that has dominated American politics for the past three decades at least: the conflict between a vision of America dominated by fear and intolerance and one of gradual movement toward a more just society; between a philosophy that says government can do no good (except for the super-rich, but shhhhh) and one that hopes to turn government into a vehicle for the achievement of at least a few of our ideals.

The other side in this conflict has consistently gotten the better of us for the past thirty years. For twenty-eight years, we had eight of Democratic rule. Now we have nine, and let’s just think about this last one – since the inauguration, we’ve gotten a watered down stimulus and a root canal of a debate about health care that has led even the compromise of the public option into the jaws of the right-wing, teabagging, “get the government out of my pockets” monster. That’s it. Basically, that’s the legacy of the first year of the Obama administration and the Democratic super-majority.

So, you might ask, did we even deserve to keep the seat? Would it even have helped our country to have 60 Dems instead of 59? I don’t know about the first question (it seems you only deserve something in politics by winning it), but the answer to the second is, frankly, yes. Because if the belief that government actually can lead our society to a more just existence has any purchase anymore, we have to understand that baby steps forward are still better than leaps backward; that every vote, no matter how spineless, counts; that every victory matters. These are the lessons that Ted Kennedy learned in the Senate, and if anything positive can come from tonight’s results, for Massachusetts and for the country, it is a better understanding of these truths.

So no, Scott Brown, tonight wasn’t historic. It wasn’t new. It was a reminder, once again, of the power of the simple messages that Republicans have been spouting for 30 years. It was just a little more painful this time.

Sorry, Teddy.

By Sean Quirk

Despite the historical pluralism in the Nation of Immigrants, Americans have often displayed gross xenophobia and anti-immigration sentiments towards those that seek a new life on their shores.  Trends in the last few decades continue America’s recurrent predilection to shut its gates to hopeful immigrants.

No blog piece could accurately encapsulate the complexity of the United States’ immigration issue.  The multifarious characteristics of immigration politics and individuals who come to America will not all be addressed in this piece.  Instead, we will analyze a few significant segments of the current debate surrounding undocumented immigration—namely, the issue’s terminology, the “freeloader” myth, and the struggle for labor mobility.  This piece is not intended to conform to Democratic Party policy pamphlets, but instead to recast the undocumented immigration debate in terms that promote greater tolerance and recognition of a desire to ameliorate poverty.

Hateful anti-immigrant rhetoric is so ubiquitous that it pervades beyond Limbaugh’s radio waves and Dobbs’ rants to exit the mouths of our Democratic president and the liberal populace.  The common term “illegal alien” is one of many epithets used to dehumanize a person who resorts to extralegal means to enter the United States.  The term removes the subject from our political-legal community as an “illegal” human being, while s/he exists as an “alien” outside the accepted bounds of American society.  Anti-immigration rhetoricians often simply call these desperate, often impoverished peoples “illegals,” further dehumanizing them in order to inhibit our otherwise natural feelings of empathy towards the needy.

To frame the debate not around sub-human “illegals,” but the undocumented immigrants that disobey the law often to feed themselves and their children is to begin to strip away at the socially constructed animosity toward undocumented immigrants.  Americans can then begin to see the undocumented population that lives in the shadows of our society and the faces behind the border wall.

Immigration opponents’ frequent claim that undocumented workers “freeload” off society is false. In fact, by paying federal income taxes out of their paychecks and abstaining from using state resources such as welfare, Medicare, and even calling the police/fire department for fear of being deported, undocumented immigrants actually add significantly more revenue to the state than the costs of the services they use.  Princeton Professor Douglass Massey’s article “Illegal immigrants: Are they freebies or freeloaders?” reveals that a mere 4 percent of a studied immigration population used food stamps, while 60 percent reported paying taxes.  Moreover, only 11 percent reported sending their children to US public schools, even though they are legally entitled to do so.  The result of these undocumented workers is actually a net increase in government funds.  Yet, the more compelling realization from this data is not the positive economic benefits of undocumented populations, but the moral reprehensibility of a system that allows millions of people to remain economically destitute in the shadows of the general American public.

Immigration reform—long-debated and little-instituted—must be a paramount objective for the American polity.  Any reform must be centered around the correlation beyond the strength of the US economy and its resulting lure to foreign laborers.  The recent recession appears to have decreased the numbers of undocumented immigrants in the US from 11.8 million in 2007 to 11.6 million in 2008, according to the Department of Homeland Security.  Such data demonstrates that these workers, failing to find jobs, are returning to their native countries.  Political and cultural leaders must recognize the power of the US economy over immigration flows and its capability to improve the livelihoods of millions who seek better economic conditions, not to mention the great economic benefits for the US from large amounts of willing labor.

Just as nations lifted tariffs and embargoes to expand free trade, developing countries must acknowledge the hypocrisy of political boundaries that strictly halt the free movement of labor.  Radical as it may seem, such freedom of migration to meet global labor demands can substantially improve the livelihoods of indigent laborers.  For instance, Nepal’s deep poverty had been cut by 25 percent due to remittances from Nepalese working in India.  Lant Pritchett, a globalization expert at Harvard, reminds us that such poverty alleviation is not about helping Nepal, but about helping Nepalese.  Rawlsian philosophy advocates not discriminating against others due to any conditions of birth.  If we do not want to prevent a woman from acquiring a job because of her sex, then how can we bar her because of the location of her birth?

Globalization will continue to alter what products we consume and how Americans perceive international workers that meet unmet domestic labor demands.  As we look at the undocumented immigration debate, we must recognize that contentment with poverty on this or the other side of American borders is deplorable.  It is time for immigration reform, and it is time to bring the undocumented mothers and fathers, children and grandchildren, out from the shadows, welcoming those who desire to join the Nation of Immigrants.