College Democrats | University of Wisconsin - Madison

Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Veepstakes
Ok, so I know we've all gone over this before but why not have another go at it? Here's the New York Times' Short Lists for both Senator Obama and Senator McCain.

Who do you think would make the best VP? Who would you most like to see? How about Secretary of Defense, State, Energy, or the ever important Secretary of Transportation?

Here are my picks:

Obama:
VP: Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska)
Secretary of Defense: Colin Powell
Secretary of State: Bill Richardson

Three choices that won't cost you a single Democratic post, and Senator Hagel gets big props for his stance on the war and Senator Obama's calls for a post-partisan America.

As for Senator Clinton, I think it's time that she become Majority Leader in the Senate. She has the fire, passion, and popularity that are lacking under Senator Reid, and I think that it's safe to say she'd be up for the challenge.

So there you have it: Clinton & Pelosi leading the Hill, Obama and Hagel in the White House. Is it too much to ask Russ to leave the Senate and become the next Attorney General?

Honestly, can you think of a better person to restore the credibility that Ashcroft/Gonzales destroyed?
posted by Oliver Kiefer at 11:46 PM 3 comments Post to DemWire

Elitism and Flip Flops
"In Arizona, the only way to get around is by small private plane."

But remember, Barack and Michelle Obama are the ones who have trouble relating to the white working-class...

In other non-reported news, there goes ole John McCain again. Switching his position on troop-levels in Afghanistan by promising troops that don't exist unless we withdrawal from Iraq which, by coincidence, he doesn't support.

Don't expect to hear about either of this stories tomorrow. Elitism and flip-flops only fit into the Obama media narrative.

UPDATE: Just one more example of McCain's flip-flopping extravaganza. This is either one deeply senile or one deeply dishonest man.

UPDATE 7/16: The Obama campaign held a conference call with reporters on the flip-flopping this morning so the Afghanistan thing actually was covered. Haven't seen anything about the Dream Act though.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 8:46 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Monday, July 14, 2008

Obama's Regional Strength
Being a poll junkie, I was particularly fascinated by Rasmussen's recent polls focusing coincidentally on upper Midwestern States. Here's a quick rundown:

Minnesota 7/10: Obama 52%, McCain 34% (or 54/37 with "leaners")

Iowa 7/10: Obama 48%, McCain 38% (or 51/41 with "leaners")

Michigan 7/10: Obama 47%, McCain 39% (or 50/42 with "leaners")

South Dakota 7/9: Obama 40%, McCain 44% (or 43/47 with "leaners")

And here's some more Midwestern polls from the last couple weeks.

Montana 7/1: Obama 48%, McCain 43%

North Dakota 7/8:
Obama 43%, McCain 43% (47/48 with "leaners")

Wisconsin 7/8: Obama 50%, McCain 39% (52/42 with "leaners")

Rasmussen didn't poll Indiana but here's what Survey USA found in June:
Indiana 6/21-6/23: Obama 48%, McCain 47%

What's interesting is that these surprisingly solid numbers for Obama in arguably the most "competitive" region of the country are all coming at a time when Obama has been losing ground (albeit very slightly) in national polls. All these states have very high favorability ratings for both candidates but they're heavily favoring Obama. Now I was never one to say Obama is going to completely shift the electoral map. Obama is not going to win Alabama in November just like McCain is not going to win Massachusetts.

That said, Obama's leads in states that John Kerry only won or lost by 1-3% (MN, MI, WI, IA) are just massive. It's beginning to seem like Obama might lock up the supposedly competitive upper Midwest pretty early for whatever reason and the Midwestern battlegrounds might shift to the Dakotas, Indiana and Montana, all of which Kerry lost by 20+ points. Ohio and Missouri should be competitive as usual. While of course it's great Obama has such a solid Wisconsin lead (confirmed by recent polls by SurveyUSA and by the UW-Madison Poli Sci Dept), the political junkie in me would be sad to see our state lose national attention and electoral significance. But bottom line, Obama has many possible paths to 270 electoral votes. McCain doesn't seem anywhere close to picking up any blue states.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 5:55 PM 1 comments Post to DemWire

Friday, July 11, 2008

More Budget Drama
The Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled that Menasha Corp was unfairly charged sales taxes on its software and. The ramification of that is further revenue losses and taxes from past years that will have to be refunded for similar products...and thus a larger deficit (~$265 million) and further painful cuts on the horizon. Good time or best time to finally consider the no-brainer hospital tax?

As a side not, look near the end of this news story:
The Supreme Court agreed with the Tax Appeals Commission in determining that the software Menasha bought was customized and should not have been taxed.

The ruling, authored by the court's newest member Justice Annette Ziegler, takes the side of the state's business community which argued that the Revenue Department was incorrectly collecting the taxes from businesses.

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the state's largest business lobby, was a major backer of Ziegler in her successful race for the Supreme Court last year.

This is how Justice Ziegler is going to be represented in the media every time she rules in favor of business. I don't know she feels about that, but if it was me I'd feel like that was a giant elephant in the room that casts doubt on my integrity as an impartial agent of the law. It's going to be a very similar situation when Gableman takes office; WMC basically bought his election too. If the election of State Supreme Court justices isn't going to be eliminated, it at the very least need to be completely publicly financed. The potential for and reality of conflicts of interest is simply too great.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 12:29 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Obama's Fundraising
June is expected to be another lackluster month (relatively of course) where Sen. Obama only raises about $30 million. I think it's extremely selfish of the Clintons to be asking that Obama's donors help repay her debt (to mostly go to the truly evil Mark Penn, to pay off debts incurred by Sen. Clinton continuing to campaign well after they had any mathematical chance of winning); it's not like they don't have the money to take care of it themselves. There's already evidence this is hurting Obama's fundraising.

Even though I haven't heard of seen any commentary about this, might it not be true that record-high gas prices are significantly cutting into family's disposable incomes? Especially the kind of family that makes up the small donor base (less than $200) that contributes 45% of Obama's fundraising?

Moreover, it was always a bad idea to raise expectations such that Obama is expected to blow McCain and the RNC out of the water in fundraising. Just breaking even is a pretty huge achievement in light of recent Republican advantages in presidential elections. But now it looks like a defeat, especially since Obama rejected public financing.

UPDATE: Obama campaign denies WSJ story.

UPDATE 7/17: I'm glad the Obama campaign knows how to play the expectations game too. Too bad they had to give me a heart attack in the process. I completely retract most of this post, the campaign raised $52 million in June.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 10:03 AM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Vice Presidential Wordplay
If you're a presidential candidate, you know whoever you pick as vice president is going to be put on a bumper sticker with you and for months people are going to be saying the name of your ticket as if it's one word.

I've always wondered how major a consideration that is for presidential campaigns. Do they ensure they pick someone whose name will roll off your tongue harmoniously? I'm sure name length is a consideration; imagine if Obama picked Debbie Wasserman-Schultz as his running mate?

Other problematic names I forsee:

Indiana Senator Evan Bayh

Say: Obama-Bayh...makes you think lullaby doesn't it? Doesn't give you a strong, safe, national security credentials-y vibe. And he has already said he would say yes to being vice-president if asked.

Virginia Governor Tim Kaine

This one is worse.
Say: Obama-Kaine...uh, you probably don't want the mere recitation of the name of your ticket to conger the image of your opponent. Kaine is pretty unlikely, but he's been mentioned, and Virginia is going to be very close this year.

There are likely to be others, but might they be off the table anyway?

UPDATE: Obama/Napolitano=too many syllables! Obama/Sebelius=too foreign sounding!
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 11:23 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Saturday, July 05, 2008

You Stay Classy Fox News!
This is why I watch Fox & Friends religiously.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 10:45 AM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Friday, July 04, 2008

Why We Fight!
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

posted by Andrew Voss at 11:01 AM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Tuesday, July 01, 2008

Separation of Military and Politics
As the media continues to dwell on the supposed "swiftboating" of John McCain by Wesley Clark, who dared question whether the fact that McCain got shot down and was tortured by the Vietcong automatically means he'd be a good president, I think it's important to take a step back.

Of course Clark didn't "demean" McCain's military service; in fact he prefaced everything he said with the necessary cliches about how McCain is a genuine American hero, gave up a lot for his country, yada yada yada. But he raised a very legitimate point about how, in contemporary political discourse, being in the military or even being associated with the military gives you special political authority and an almost invulnerability to criticism. Supposedly you're more credible on all matters of policy, particularly national security policy, if you've served in the armed forces.

This isn't always true, especially if it's led you to flawed conclusions about America's role in the world and the proper use of military power, as it clearly has with John McCain. Fighting in the military is a completely different perspective from a policy maker and can obscure the big picture and diminish the importance of diplomacy. But the blind trust Americans place in the military as an institution and members of the military can lead to bad public policy and lack of accountability, as I mentioned in a Herald column last year in reference to Gen. Petraeus.

For another example, why is it impossible to cut funding for useless Cold War-era weapons in the Pentagon budget? Well part of it is pork barrel earmarks that politicians fight tooth and nail to retain, but part of it is definitely the fact that no one wants to seem unsupportive of the military and therefore unpatriotic (since continuing to waste billions on 1960s submarine and missile technology is clearly patriotism at its finest).

Unfortunately, Sen. Obama issued a pathetic response, typical of the last few weeks, parroting the conventional wisdom that Clark said something offensive that will only backfire. It's sad to see false premises go unchallenged.

Update: For anyone who thinks the media isn't demagoguing this to death, watch this. Oh look! Now instead of talking about any important issues whatsoever, we're discussing the abstract concepts of "heroism" and "patriotism" and "honor." How substantive.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 7:23 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Fixed penalties for environmental destruction: the S.C. decision from hell

I’m still struggling to conceal my disappointment over today’s Heller decision. Hopefully everybody caught another recent decision which I actually think is much worse, with far greater ramifications for our justice system.

Yesterday, in a 5-3 decision (Alito recused himself -- he owns Exxon stock), the Supreme Court reduced from $2.5 billion to $500 million the amount of punitive damages which could be awarded from the Exxon Valdez oil spill. Their reasoning: punitive damages almost never exceed actual damages, and are usually much lower.

With this decision, we should never again tolerate accusations that liberals support “judicial activists,” who “legislate from the bench.” Here the Court came up with an entirely new rule: Punitive damages should cap out at a 1:1 ratio with actual damages.

Huh? I thought punitive damages were designed to make sure that extraordinary negligence or abuses received extra punishment as a deterrent. Surely Exxon Mobil, which let an alcoholic on a binge steer an oil tanker through ecologically-fragile waters, leading to an environmental disaster unmatched in recent history, represents that level of extraordinary neglect. If a Russian tanker had spilled that much oil into the waters of Prince William Sound, we wouldn’t be talking about limiting punitive damages or providing judicial relief for responsibility.

We live at a time when environmental concerns should be front-and-center. Every American should be more familiar with the possibilities of cap-and-trade and tax-and-dividend policies for reducing emissions. And I suspect the Supreme Court is worried about the wave of litigation which (properly) will emerge in the coming years when environmental abuses in this country become more publicly-known. Today, every environmentally-unfriendly corporation received a de facto fixed cost for any future neglect. It’s very unsettling.

And it shows us who the real judicial activists are.

posted by Eric Schmidt at 11:11 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

9/3/06 - 9/10/06 9/10/06 - 9/17/06 9/17/06 - 9/24/06 9/24/06 - 10/1/06 10/1/06 - 10/8/06 10/8/06 - 10/15/06 10/15/06 - 10/22/06 10/22/06 - 10/29/06 10/29/06 - 11/5/06 11/5/06 - 11/12/06 11/12/06 - 11/19/06 11/19/06 - 11/26/06 11/26/06 - 12/3/06 12/3/06 - 12/10/06 12/10/06 - 12/17/06 12/17/06 - 12/24/06 12/24/06 - 12/31/06 12/31/06 - 1/7/07 1/7/07 - 1/14/07 1/14/07 - 1/21/07 1/21/07 - 1/28/07 1/28/07 - 2/4/07 2/4/07 - 2/11/07 2/11/07 - 2/18/07 2/18/07 - 2/25/07 2/25/07 - 3/4/07 3/4/07 - 3/11/07 3/18/07 - 3/25/07 3/25/07 - 4/1/07 4/1/07 - 4/8/07 4/8/07 - 4/15/07 4/15/07 - 4/22/07 4/22/07 - 4/29/07 4/29/07 - 5/6/07 5/6/07 - 5/13/07 5/13/07 - 5/20/07 5/20/07 - 5/27/07 5/27/07 - 6/3/07 6/3/07 - 6/10/07 6/10/07 - 6/17/07 6/17/07 - 6/24/07 6/24/07 - 7/1/07 7/1/07 - 7/8/07 7/8/07 - 7/15/07 7/15/07 - 7/22/07 7/22/07 - 7/29/07 7/29/07 - 8/5/07 8/5/07 - 8/12/07 8/12/07 - 8/19/07 8/19/07 - 8/26/07 8/26/07 - 9/2/07 9/2/07 - 9/9/07 9/9/07 - 9/16/07 9/16/07 - 9/23/07 9/23/07 - 9/30/07 9/30/07 - 10/7/07 10/7/07 - 10/14/07 10/14/07 - 10/21/07 10/21/07 - 10/28/07 10/28/07 - 11/4/07 11/4/07 - 11/11/07 11/11/07 - 11/18/07 11/18/07 - 11/25/07 11/25/07 - 12/2/07 12/2/07 - 12/9/07 12/9/07 - 12/16/07 12/16/07 - 12/23/07 12/23/07 - 12/30/07 12/30/07 - 1/6/08 1/6/08 - 1/13/08 1/13/08 - 1/20/08 1/20/08 - 1/27/08 1/27/08 - 2/3/08 2/3/08 - 2/10/08 2/10/08 - 2/17/08 2/17/08 - 2/24/08 2/24/08 - 3/2/08 3/2/08 - 3/9/08 3/9/08 - 3/16/08 3/16/08 - 3/23/08 3/23/08 - 3/30/08 3/30/08 - 4/6/08 4/6/08 - 4/13/08 4/13/08 - 4/20/08 4/20/08 - 4/27/08 4/27/08 - 5/4/08 5/4/08 - 5/11/08 5/11/08 - 5/18/08 5/18/08 - 5/25/08 5/25/08 - 6/1/08 6/1/08 - 6/8/08 6/8/08 - 6/15/08 6/15/08 - 6/22/08 6/22/08 - 6/29/08 6/29/08 - 7/6/08 7/6/08 - 7/13/08 7/13/08 - 7/20/08

 Subscribe in a reader   Download the blog feed Dashboard Widget


The views and opinions expressed in this blog do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of the UW-Madison College Democrats. They are the views of their authors. Postings by individual board members to not necessarily represent a consensus opinion of the board or organization.