The Capital Times today is running an editorial on Russ Feingold and what may be a coming war on AIDS. I'll start you off with the beginning paragraphs - you can click through to finish the read.

What may turn out to be the most important recent development in the global fight against HIV/AIDS will go little noted on this World AIDS Day. But it could turn out to be hugely significant in the year to come.

When Democrats take charge of the Congress in January, U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., will become the chairman of the Africa Subcommittee of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

No member of the Senate has taken the need to respond to the HIV/AIDS crisis more seriously than Feingold. And as chairman of the committee charged with examining and encouraging U.S. relations with the region of the world most ravaged by the disease, he will finally be in a position to address the essential issues of a complicated and demanding geopolitical struggle.

You're a Wisconsin public official who happens to be gay or lesbian.

When the time comes to be sworn in again, you get to swear to uphold a new constitutional amendment that forbids you from forming a marriage or a civil union.

So what do you do?

Hold up one hand and cross your fingers on the other?

Walk away?

I don't mean to be light-hearted. Many gays take the Nov. 7 vote as a stinging rebuke from their fellow citizens.

So begins a fantastic article by Susan Lampert Smith in today's Wisconsin State Journal.

Dan Ross, a longtime member of the Madison Equal Opportunities Commission, submitted his resignation after the vote, in which nearly 65 percent of voters approved a referendum limiting marriage to one woman and one man.

"To be on the EOC, I signed an oath to uphold the constitutions of the state and country, and I can no longer do so in good conscience, when that very constitution classifies me as less than equal," he wrote, in resigning.

Bert Zipperer, who heads the EOC, wants to keep Ross on the commission, but he sees the problem the new amendment causes for those committed to civil rights.

"Vowing to discriminate against yourself?" Zipperer asked. "Vowing to discriminate against your friends and family? It's obscene."

It's bad enough that amazing and dedicated public servants like Ross and Representative Mark Pocan have to swear to discriminate against themselves. But one elected official has to do it not once, but twice:

Ald. Mike Verveer, who also is an assistant district attorney, has to swear the oath twice, once for his elected job on the Madison City Council and once for his career keeping us safe from criminals. As a gay man, he said the constitutional issue troubles him. He's heard friends say they will no longer serve as election poll workers for that reason.

So, in review: by passing the amendment, we're losing dedicated civil servants, poll workers, and making some of our best politicians takes oaths against themselves, in addition to hurting thousands of gay and straight families across the state and abandoning Wisconsin tradition and our history of civil rights leadership. All of this for a mean-spirited attempt by Republicans to win votes that backfired abysmally.

Whether our gay and lesbian officials walk like Ross or stay like Wagner, it's clear this inauguration day will be bittersweet for many.

Bittersweet, indeed.

General Motors today announced that they'll be making available a plug-in hybrid version of their Saturn VUE SUV (they already make a standard hybrid version). What's special about a plug-in hybrid, you ask? Well, like all hybrids, it has the ability to supplement its gas-burning engine with an electric motor which is charged while the engine is over-generating energy, resulting in some improvement in fuel efficiency. A plug-in hybrid, however, can be plugged in to an in-home electrical outlet to charge when not in use, therefor relying on both the power grid and the gasoline motor for electricity and improving efficiency a bit more. General Motors will be the first auto manufacturer in the world to offer such a vehicle (assuming another manufacturer doesn't announce, say, tomorrow and then get it to market faster).

They also announced a slew of other hybrid vehicles to be available in the near future ranging form midsize sedans to fullsize pickups and SUVs, reiterated support for their E85 ethanol vehicles already on the road, and confirmed their plans to have a small fleet of Chevy Equinox fuel cell vehicles on the roads in 2007. The hybrids and E85 vehicles are general public offerings while the fuel cell vehicles would be available to corporations and institutional customers.

There was no mention of new engines to take advantage of the new low-sulfer diesel the entire US diesel supply has been changed over to.

All in all, since greener cars seem to be what all the cool kids are driving, this growing commitment to alternative drivetrains and fuels seems like it'll generate more sales for GM in the near future (meaning more American jobs), reduce our dependance on foreign oil, and hurt our environment just a little bit less.

Further details about General Motors announcements today at the Los Angeles Auto Show are available here.

Over at the Lance Burri Blog (he's a conservative commentator in Baraboo), Burri is arguging that Republicans were simply foiled by fate in the recent election.

"A massive, inevitable defeat, brought on by forces that were well beyond our control."

I wholly disagree with his characterization of the Republican defeat.

Why? These things may have not been within the control of an individual candidate during the cycle, but they were fully within GOP control previously.

Republicans lost because time after time, they chose political expediency over what is best for constituents and our country. It wasn't a one time thing, and it wasn't an isolated thing. It has been a plank of GOP political operations for at least a decade. The American people finally had enough.

He writes:

"Another factor: the marriage amendment, which may have spurred Democrat success in places where student turnout – fueled by massive anti-amendment efforts – brought more-than-usual Democrat votes to the polls."

This was not outside of GOP control. They could have controlled this by resisting the temptation to score political points by having Wisconsin take a vote on the lives and families of gay people. Republicans had control of the state legislature, and had the ability to rise above this kind of political pandering.

But they didn't, and it backfired. But to say that it wasn't in GOP control is absolutely asinine. Republicans wrote the amendment. Republicans passed it with their legislative majorities. Republican candidates proudly trumpeted their bigotry, but it didn't bring them any election day triumph. Tough luck. When you gamble and lose, at least accept the blame.

"And then there’s the war. I hesitate to conclude that people have turned against the war effort, but the steady drumbeat of casualties with neither end nor measurable goal in sight took their toll. Polls showed clearly that the public was not happy, and as public opinion on the war went, so went opinion on President Bush."

Again, with GOP majorities in Washington, legislators could have done better with Iraq policy and strategy. They could have forced the President to actually craft a winning plan. But they thought it was politically expedient to not do so, so they didn't. On November 7th, they paid dearly for that decision.

So, back in May, and June, and July…perhaps we should have anticipated more fully the effects of the marriage amendment. Perhaps we should have anticipated the Doyle campaign’s expert ju-jitsu on his ethics problems.

But could we have known then that Iraq and the President’s numbers were going to drag Republicans down, come November? Could we have honestly predicted that the Bush administration – with all their Rovian strategery – wouldn’t turn that around somehow?

No. Not in July.

The time to anticipate this wasn't as election season heated up. The time was when decisions were being made while they governed. Had Republicans done the right thing in the first place (it never happens), perhaps they wouldn't have been down shit creek without a paddle on the 7th.

They could have said no to discrimination for political gain. They could have said no to the President's arrogant stubborness. They could have said yes to ethical leadership (and let's be clear - it was Republican leaders in Wisconsin and Washington, as well as Mark Green who had ethical issues, not Jim Doyle). They could have said yes to sensible spending policies, yes to accepting the political realities in Iraq, and yes to doing the best thing for all Americans on a host of issues that we care about.

But they didn't.

In the end, it was this strong record of failure that cost Republicans in November. It's shocking that GOP talking heads still haven't figured it out. The Democratic Tsunami didn't come out of nowhere. Republicans made it, and lost because they consistently made wrong decisions on pretty much every issue. To blame it on fate avoids accepting any responsibilities for the shortcomings and failures of the last 12 years. It also means that the GOP still hasn't learned anything, which only bodes well for maintaining and increasing our majorities in the future, because Democrats - unlike Republicans - will craft a record of results for the American people.

One of the first (and best) things I learned in this business is a set of five rules: own your shit - no regrets, no apologies - don't talk big at the bar - work big, win big - results matter

Two apply here. Results Matter: The GOP didn't produce results, and they paid. So now they need to own it. Republicans, you lost because your ideology, politics, and policies failed.

Own your shit.

CBS 3 WISC:

The same embryonic stem cell bill that prompted the only veto in the Bush presidency to date will soon be headed for the president's desk again.

The big question is whether supporters in the new Democratic Congress can come up with enough votes to override another veto.

There's a little tiny bit of background on the bill at the linked article if you need it.

From the Intolerant Wing of the Republican Party comes this lovely column by Dennis Prager.

It attacks the recently elected Representative from Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, Keith Ellison. He happens to hold the distinction of being the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress.

You can imagine where this is going.

Keith Ellison, D-Minn., the first Muslim elected to the United States Congress, has announced that he will not take his oath of office on the Bible, but on the bible of Islam, the Koran.

He should not be allowed to do so -- not because of any American hostility to the Koran, but because the act undermines American civilization.

Right. Capitol Hill will come "a-tumblin' down" if we respect the Congressman's beliefs. Prager is making an argument based on the same logic that opponents of marriage equality use: straight people in Massachusetts are getting divorced simply because the lesbian couple down the street tied the knot.

Oh, wait. That's not hapenning at all. Oops?

First, it is an act of hubris that perfectly exemplifies multiculturalist activism -- my culture trumps America's culture. What Ellison and his Muslim and leftist supporters are saying is that it is of no consequence what America holds as its holiest book; all that matters is what any individual holds to be his holiest book.

Or, his supporters believe that what he swears his oath upon is inconsequential, that it isn't about culture but rather rights and freedoms upon which American culture is based. It's enough for his supporters that the fact he is willing to take an oath to the diety of his religion - regardless of what that may be - suffices to show his committment to upholding the Constitution of the United States.

(I also missed the memo that declares the Christian Bible as the "holiest book" of the US Government, which is secular and doesn't endorse any specific religion. I suppose that's just part of the "reality" outside the 76 square miles that I live in. Because after all, if Prager and his ilk are correct, the liberal, secular brainwashing I'm getting at this University is indoctrinating me with crazy ideas - like separation of church and state and the first amendment. Silly concepts, really. Silly, silly, silly.)

Devotees of multiculturalism and political correctness who do not see how damaging to the fabric of American civilization it is to allow Ellison to choose his own book need only imagine a racist elected to Congress. Would they allow him to choose Hitler's "Mein Kampf," the Nazis' bible, for his oath? And if not, why not? On what grounds will those defending Ellison's right to choose his favorite book deny that same right to a racist who is elected to public office?

Because we're talking about religious beliefs, not political stances. Nazism was a political party, not a religion. Racism, similarly, isn't a religion. The same applies to Republicanism- though it isn't a religion, many right-wingers treat the Republican Party as such (with Money, Intolerance, Greed, and lust for Power as the Gods to which they worship). This is terribly ironic in light of the "Christian values" frequently touted by Prager & Co. during election season. However, true Christian values like helping the poor, promoting tolerance and love for all people, and other basic tenets of Christian faith are regularly ignored when they come into conflict with supporting GOP platitudes or achieving electoral success. (Sidenote: the "values" agenda didn't work for them all that well this year, did it? America finally woke up.)

Of course, Ellison's defenders argue that Ellison is merely being honest; since he believes in the Koran and not in the Bible, he should be allowed, even encouraged, to put his hand on the book he believes in. But for all of American history, Jews elected to public office have taken their oath on the Bible, even though they do not believe in the New Testament, and the many secular elected officials have not believed in the Old Testament either. Yet those secular officials did not demand to take their oaths of office on, say, the collected works of Voltaire or on a volume of New York Times editorials, writings far more significant to some liberal members of Congress than the Bible. Nor has one Mormon official demanded to put his hand on the Book of Mormon. And it is hard to imagine a scientologist being allowed to take his oath of office on a copy of "Dianetics" by L. Ron Hubbard.

In otherwords, we should do things the we have always done them because... that's the way we've always done them. A terribly good argument, to be sure. I would, however, encourage Mr. Prager to ask other communities within our society that were/are oppressed (essentially, everyone except WASPy straight men) what they think about that argument.

Prager ignores the simple fact that no one has done it before because it would have most likely been political suicide, but also because it may just not have been that big of a deal to previous Representatives. However, that still provides no justification to infringe upon the religious freedoms of Mr. Ellison. (And yes, Rep. Ellison does have religious freedoms - the GOP hasn't managed to get rid of the first amendment yet, as hard as it seems they sometimes try.)

The column goes on to argue that the true motive for allowing Ellison his constitutional rights that we're trying to win friends in the Muslim World.

But these naive people do not appreciate that America will not change the attitude of a single American-hating Muslim by allowing Ellison to substitute the Koran for the Bible. In fact, the opposite is more likely: Ellison's doing so will embolden Islamic extremists and make new ones, as Islamists, rightly or wrongly, see the first sign of the realization of their greatest goal -- the Islamicization of America.

No, we're supporting his request because it's his right as an American. Period! The religious freedoms Americans enjoy are something that bother many of the terrorists the most (President Bush: "They hate our freedom."), and granting Ellison his right will only prove to them that America is strong enough to allow people of different beliefs to live and work together. As long as that happens, "the terrorists will never win."

Does anyone else find it ironic that the radical, right-wing fundamentalists in America hate exactly the same thing as radical Islamic terrorists - the right of an individual to freely choose a religion that is not their own? Also, since when does the US Government have any reason to be interested in the personal religious beliefs of its citizens? Is there some clause in the Constitution (that I apparently missed in my ConLaw class) that mandates the "Christianization," or even "Religionization" of America?

(That was a rhetorical question. The answer is no.)

When all elected officials take their oaths of office with their hands on the very same book, they all affirm that some unifying value system underlies American civilization. If Keith Ellison is allowed to change that, he will be doing more damage to the unity of America and to the value system that has formed this country than the terrorists of 9-11.

No! When elected officials and citizens alike are allowed to freely exercise their beliefs in a system of laws that protects this, we affirm that a very specific unifying value system underlies American civilization.

It's called the Constitution. Allowing Ellison to swear an oath on the Qur'an will not damage the unity of America or our value system. Instead, it will strengthen it.

There's an interesting graphic on Wikipedia mapping out the world as seen by Ronald Reagan.

Despite an overwhelming rebuke of his petulant and arrogant style by the American people, President Bush still hasn't learned. Sadly, I'm not surprised.

President Bush has pledged to work with the new Democratic majorities in Congress, but he has already gotten off on the wrong foot with Jim Webb, whose surprise victory over Sen. George Allen (R-Va.) tipped the Senate to the Democrats.

Webb, a decorated former Marine officer, hammered Allen and Bush over the unpopular war in Iraq while wearing his son’s old combat boots on the campaign trail. It seems the president may have some lingering resentment.

At a private reception held at the White House with newly elected lawmakers shortly after the election, Bush asked Webb how his son, a Marine lance corporal serving in Iraq, was doing.

Webb responded that he really wanted to see his son brought back home, said a person who heard about the exchange from Webb.

“I didn’t ask you that, I asked how he’s doing,” Bush retorted, according to the source.

Webb confessed that he was so angered by this that he was tempted to slug the commander-in-chief, reported the source, but of course didn’t. It’s safe to say, however, that Bush and Webb won’t be taking any overseas trips together anytime soon.

I can't wait until the new Congress is seated. It will be good for the President - he will finally be forced to reign in his arrogant ego and actually accept that he can't always get his way, especially when that way is based on emotion and stubborness, instead of concrete realities.

But more importantly, our six new Senators - Jim Webb (VA), Bob Casey (PA), Sheldon Whitehouse (RI), Claire McCaskill (MO), Jon Tester (MT), and Sherrod Brown (OH) - will join our remaining 45 Democratic Senators and our 30 seat majority in the House as Democrats bring a refreshing and much needed change in US policy in Iraq. While President Bush may resist a new direction, the American people will certainly welcome it. (You can read three possible paths for US strategy in an excellent piece by our own Ryan Greenfield here.)

My reaction on the conversation? Too bad Webb didn't swing.

Just Kidding. :)

The title says it all, but you can read more if you want to.

Peg Lautenschlager is fighting the good fight, but in this case in her capacity as parent and concerned citizen instead of Attorney General.

There are still a few House seats around the country that are undergoing recounts or court battles for which the winner has not yet been decided definitively. One of these is Florida's 13th Congressional District, which perhaps fittingly, is the House seat vacated by the infamous Katherine Harris (the Florida Secretary of State during the 2000 election recount) who ran for Senate and thankfully lost by a landslide.

Thus, there was an open seat contest in this heavily Republican district centered on Sarasota, Florida between Democrat Christine Jennings and Republican Vern Buchanan. The final results were extremely close on election night, triggering an automatic recount under Florida law. The final count showed Jennings still down by 369 votes but Jennings sued for a new election on the basis of 18,000 undervotes (ballots where the voter did not vote for a candidate in the House race) in Sarasota county. This was a rate of nearly 15%, much greater than that in surrounding counties, where the undervote rates ranged from 2-5%.

Why did so many people choose not to vote for such a closely contested race? Many believe it was the extremely poor ballot design on the electronic voting machines that caused people to miss the Congressional race entirely. In addition, many voters reported being unable to get their votes to register on the touchscreens or voting only to find the wrong candidate highlighted on the summary screen before the vote was cast.

These machines lacked paper trails (a receipt that the machine gives you after voting so you know your correct votes were registered) so it's impossible to know for sure the voters' intentions. But Christine Jennings has a pretty good case to make because she was favored in Sarasota County where there the abnormally large number of undervotes were cast. In addition, an analysis of the undervoted ballots by the Orlando Sentinel revealed that the voters who failed to register votes in the House race overwhelmingly supported Democrats in other statewide and national races on the ballot.

It's hard to imagine that Jennings would not have won if the voting machines hadn't been so screwed up. This just underscores the vulnerabilities and disadvantages of electronic voting machines, especially those that lack paper trails. This hasn't gotten a lot of coverage nationally, probably because control of Congress is not in doubt and election reform is hard to get excited about. However, we really are just one close election away from another litigation nightmare like Florida in 2000 and 2008 is not that far off. This should not be a partisan issue; mandating fair elections and functioning voting equipment nationally should be a no-brainer for this next Congress.

I got kind of behind on reading over Thanksgiving break but today I read an interesting article in the Washington Post from last Monday. The gist is that Pentagon insiders believe we have three options remaining in Iraq.

"Go Big," the first option, originally contemplated a large increase in U.S. troops in Iraq to try to break the cycle of sectarian and insurgent violence. A classic counterinsurgency campaign, though, would require several hundred thousand additional U.S. and Iraqi soldiers as well as heavily armed Iraqi police. That option has been all but rejected by the study group, which concluded that there are not enough troops in the U.S. military and not enough effective Iraqi forces, said sources who have been informally briefed on the review.

[snip]

"Go Home," the third option, calls for a swift withdrawal of U.S. troops. It was rejected by the Pentagon group as likely to push Iraq directly into a full-blown and bloody civil war.

The group has devised a hybrid plan that combines part of the first option with the second one -- "Go Long" -- and calls for cutting the U.S. combat presence in favor of a long-term expansion of the training and advisory efforts. Under this mixture of options, which is gaining favor inside the military, the U.S. presence in Iraq, currently about 140,000 troops, would be boosted by 20,000 to 30,000 for a short period, the officials said.

After the Thanksgiving Day slaughter in which over 200 Shiites were killed, I think it's clear Iraq is pretty far gone. However, I'm not a military expert and thus I can't say whether there is any chance we could achieve anything by staying longer or if we should cut our losses. The Iraqis don't deserve to pay for all our monumental screw ups in the way we invaded Iraq but if we are ultimately not making progress by staying, why are we still there? The departure of American troops will likely contribute to instability but then there's a possibility that the threat of American troops leaving will cause the Iraqis to start getting their shit together. Any thoughts?

The Oshkosh Northwestern is running a piece by Jay Heck, executive director of Common Cause in Wisconsin, the state's largest non-partisan reform advocacy organization, commenting on the prospects for real ethics reform in the coming years. A choice bit from the article:

Meaningful campaign spending limits, fully-funded, publicly financed grants to candidates and to the targets of outside special interest spending, prohibiting campaign fund raising while the state budget is under consideration, disclosure and regulation of campaign ads masquerading as issue advocacy, elimination of the special interest group-funded legislative leadership slush fund campaign committees known as legislative campaign committees, restrictions on out-of-state special interest money and a non-partisan state elections and ethics entity that actually has the ability and power to find and root out corruption in state government -- are all reforms Wisconsin needs -- and has needed for years.

Governor Doyle and a more reform-friendly Legislature have a precious but small window of opportunity to get these needed reforms passed and enacted into law.

The commentary also makes note of a "bipartisan campaign finance reform proposal unveiled this Fall by State Senators Mike Ellis (R-Neenah) and Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) that would clean up state campaigns and end the corrupting influence of special interest money that has undermined public policy-making in the State Capitol for years." Governor Doyle has said he supports this bill (it died in the Republican legislature). Hopefully it will pass this time around.

Would anybody out there in campus blog land be interesting in pressuring legislators to move on these ideas?

Voters in our own 2nd Congressional District would appear to have very little in common with our neighbors in the conservative 5th Congressional District - something that the College Democrats of Madison are very thankful for, especially this year.

However, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reveals that they may have more in common than we might realize.

Jim Sensenbrenner's constituents would seem to have little in common with Tammy Baldwin's constituents. Sensenbrenner's heavily suburban U.S. House district is the state's most conservative. Baldwin's, anchored in Madison, may be its most liberal.

But voters in both places have come to share a striking distinction: They flock to the polls in greater numbers than voters almost anywhere else in the country.

More than 314,000 people voted in the Republican Sensenbrenner's 5th District on Nov. 7, and more than 304,000 voted in the Democrat Baldwin's 2nd District.

Only two congressional districts in the nation produced more votes, and both are at-large, statewide seats (Montana and South Dakota) that have a lot more people than other districts.

David Canon, one of UW's Political Science All-Stars shares one of the key reasons why:

The two districts are among the top 60 nationally (out of 435) in education levels, says Bensen. They have a much higher share of people with college or graduate degrees than Wisconsin's six other House districts. They have the highest share of white-collar workers. Turnout also tracks with income. Sensenbrenner's district has by far the highest median income in the state.

"If you factor in education and income, that would explain a lot of it," says David Canon, political scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

And just a little more from the "We've Done Good" Department:

Sensenbrenner and Baldwin both expressed pride in the high vote totals in their districts, and in their own campaigns' turnout efforts. But both acknowledged broader political factors.

Baldwin said 2006 turnout in her district was boosted by anti-war sentiment, the governor's race, and opposition to the same-sex marriage ban on the ballot, especially for younger voters. Election returns show huge increases (60% and more) over the 2002 midterm election in many University of Wisconsin wards in Madison. (emphasis mine)

"Usually, the issue I hear most about from my constituents is health care," she said. "In this election cycle, it was Iraq."

In the past four election cycles, Dane County has provided a steadily rising share of the vote for Democrats running statewide. In the '06 governor's race, it supplied more than one out every eight votes for Gov. Jim Doyle. It gave Doyle a bigger raw vote margin (91,343) than it gave Democrat John Kerry in 2004 - a remarkable fact considering how much lower turnout is in a midterm compared with a presidential election.

Read the entire piece here.