The Pulse of Liberal Activism

By James Downie

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.

Hey Columbia Dems,

Before your utterly brilliant board members Bridgit and Matt start discussing the Nevada Senate race today, we would like to air one grievance we have noticed lately. Does anyone else think that it is utterly ridiculous that pundits are saying that it is possible for Republicans to regain the Senate? After looking briefly at RealClearPolitics, it appears that in order for the Republicans to do the unthinkable, they would have to win every single toss up race, every lean Democrat race, and then take California away from Barbara Boxer. Would that ever happen? Of course not! The media is overreacting to a big load of nothing, and it is very frustrating for your bloggers to listen to.

Moving on to our topic of the day, Harry Reid’s fight to keep his seat representing Nevada. Reid is currently the Senate Majority leader, stepping into that role in January 2007, when the Democrats swept back into the majority following a huge victory in the 2006 elections. Previous to that, he had been the Minority Leader since 2005, taking Tom Daschle position when he lost. Reid is currently running for a fifth term, having represented Nevada since 1987. Reid has only had one close election, that being in 1998 when he faced a stiff challenge from John Ensign, now the junior Senator from Nevada. Reid also has a history of gaining Republicans’ support in the state, having garnered several key endorsements from the opposition party during his reelection bid in 2004.

This election, however, appears to be moving in a different direction. Anger over the current direction of Congress, shaped by President Obama’s ideas, have generated anger in Nevada and led to a very anti-liberal feeling in the state. Reid, being the head of the Democrats in the Senate, is therefore seen as representative of all of it, and is an easy target for attacks. The Republican primary is chock full of characters, with 12 people having filed for the June 8th primary. However, two candidates, Danny Tarkanian and Sue Lowden, appear to be the only legitimate candidates, with just a couple percentage points  separating the two. Tarkanian is a real estate owner and former UNLV basketball player, who has run for public office twice in the state of Nevada (both races ended in defeat for him). Lowden is the current Nevada state Republican Chairwoman and a former state senator, representing Democratic-leaning Clark County.

There has not been a recent poll showing voters’ opinions regarding the Republican primary. As such, we can only wait until the primary, which figures to be hotly contested, to see who Senator Reid needs to fight. Current polls have Reid losing to Tarkanian by an average of 8.7%, and losing to Lowden by 8.8%. However, the most recent poll regarding both possible opponents has Reid closing the gap on both. In addition, Reid has an incredible amount of money, with $8.7 million in his war chest, destroying the next closest GOP candidate John Chachas (who isn’t even a legitmate candidate)  by $7 million. In addition, the DSSC has obliterated the NRSC in campaign fundraising over the last few election cycles, though the Republicans matched the Democrats in monetary donations for the first time in over two years last month. With their leader on the line, we expect the DSSC to have a fundraising blitz in Nevada, no doubt aided by President Obama, who as we all know, had the most successful grassroots fundraising campaign of all time. In any case, it is likely that Reid will be able to outspend his opponent, whoever that might be in November.

Many political websites, as of today, have the Nevada Senate election billed as either a toss up or a leaning Republican race. However, these polls are very preliminary, and without the potential effects of heavy Democratic spending in the state, we would hesitate to write off Majority Leader Reid. It is these two bloggers sincere hope and belief that Senator Reid will be reelected, and continue to guide the Senate.

Next Week: Kentucky (Can we win in a traditionally Republican state?)

I don’t always get political, but when I do, I prefer the Democrats. Stay liberal my friends.

Hello hello my favorite left-wingers,

Welcome to the third installment of Senate Election Watch 2010 with your tremendous board members Matt and Bridgit. Today we are looking at President Obama’s old standby, the Illinois senate seat being vacated by one Roland Burris. Burris, who has only been in office for two years, has had his tenure shrouded in controversy, being that he was appointed by ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich, who has since been impeached and removed from office on corruption charges. Burris, at the urging of the Democratic Party and President Obama, has declined to seek reelection, leaving the Democratic primary open to a variety of characters.

The Illinois primary was this past week, on February 2, making it the first 2010 election in the nation. On the Democratic side, a hotly contested battle ensued, with current Illinois treasurer Alexi Giannoulias coming out with 38.9% of the vote, about 5% more than the runner-up, David Hoffman, the current Inspector General of Chicago. The Republican half of the race was much less exciting, with current U.S. Congressman Mark Kirk taking 56% of the vote, a solid 35 points over his next closest competitor.

If there ever was a race (after Massachusetts of course) that would show the greater feelings of the country and its direction, Illinois must be it. Early polling, prior to the primary, had the race jumping all over the place, with both Giannoulias and Kirk seemingly having 5% leads over each other, depending on what poll you looked at. The first poll taken post-primary by Rasmussen the day after the primary, had Kirk with a 6 point lead. However, there is a 4.5% margin of error, and 10% of the Illinois voting population remains undecided.

Kirk has been able to take the lead in Illinois due to his strong fiscally-conservative record in the House, and socially moderate policies. Illinois has a strong Democratic tradition, and although they have no partisan registration, it is a state where true conservatives have had much trouble winning elections. Kirk has achieved popularity by playing off of independents’ and moderates’ current frustration with the direction of the country. Giannoulias is not a weak candidate however, having defeated State Senator Christine Radogno in 2006 for the Treasurer position, becoming not only the youngest person in the nation (at 30) to hold that office, but also becoming the first Democrat to hold it in 12 years.

The campaign has already gone negative, with the National Republican Senatorial Committee running an ad the day after the election comparing Giannoulias’s ethical record to that of Tony Soprano. Kirk himself criticized Giannoulias for mismanagement of a college savings program and for his work at Broadway Bank. Giannoulias responded by calling Kirk a “Washington insider” who is not right for Illinois. With things getting this hot nine months from Election Day, the state of Illinois and the country as a whole can only wait and see how it pans out. If the economy continues to struggle and Obama’s plans fail, it is likely that Kirk, a moderate, can steal the seats from the Democrats. However, if things improve (as they surely must), Giannoulias should bring out the Democrats and win a striking victory. We can only hope.

Next Week: Nevada Senate Race (Will Our Glorious Leader Survive?)

I don’t always get political, but when I do, I prefer the Democrats. Stay liberal my friends.

This post appeared in the Columbia Spectator on February 10, 2010.

The issue of marriage equality ought to resonate widely on this campus. College, at its best, prepares you for the next steps you take in life, from your career to your relationships. The possibility of open discussion about our futures, between students on an equal footing, reflects the ideal of the undergraduate community. If an important part of many of those futures is prohibited by law, for no reason other than sexual orientation, the achievement of this ideal becomes next to impossible. We have a large, active community of LGBTQ students here at Columbia – whose rights our government systematically denies. Regardless of the broader question of student engagement in politics, the issue of marriage equality is one of basic fairness, which, by affecting our friends and classmates, affects each of us.

In the fall of 2008, the College Democrats saw an opportunity to bring marriage equality to New York by helping the Democratic Party reclaim control of the New York State Senate for the first time in decades. The Assembly had already passed a marriage equality bill in 2007, and Governor David Paterson had announced his support for the measure – the Senate, it seemed, needed only to fall into Democratic hands to make marriage equality a reality here in New York. College Democrats members devoted hours volunteering on the campaign of Joe Addabbo, a City Councilmember from Queens who was running against a very vulnerable Republican. Addabbo had supported LGBTQ rights while on the City Council, and he advocated extending the right to marry to same-sex couples throughout his campaign. On December 1, 2009, however, Addabbo and seven other Democrats voted against recognizing the right of same-sex couples to marry, and, because of their votes, the Marriage Equality Amendment fell in the Senate, 38-24.

Just over a year after the passing of Prop 8 in California and less than month after the referendum in Maine, this vote reflected not only the fragility of the gains made in the fight for full civil equality for LGBTQ citizens but also the cowardice of the politicians in the New York State Senate. Since that vote, LGBTQ Activists have been gearing up for another fight to bring marriage equality to New York.

This Thursday, the Students Advancing Marriage Equality (SAME) Campaign will bring that fight to Low Plaza. To highlight the hypocrisy of Addabbo and the other seven Democratic State Senators who voted against the bill in December – many of whom also campaigned in 2008 in support of marriage equality – we will be distributing petitions to be signed and sent to the offices of these Senators. Students representing the College Democrats and several LGBTQ organizations will speak, reflecting on the personal relevance of this issue as well as its political importance. We invite you to join us on Low Plaza to express your anger: anger at the unfairness of a law that prevents two people in love from getting married, anger at the snail-like pace of the progress on LGBTQ rights in this country, anger at the failure of politicians to keep their most fundamental promises.

Students, faculty, administrators, and other New Yorkers alike often lament the disconnect between the Columbia campus and our surroundings. Protected by the bubble of our classrooms and our dormitories, too often we can ignore the problems of the real world without feeling their consequences. Not this time. We, or someone we know, has or will be unable to marry, simply because they seek to marry someone of the same sex. The SAME campaign hopes to change that. As Columbia students, we have a stake in this city and this state. We all need to realize that and get involved – not for involvement’s sake, but to make New York a better and more just place to live.

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.