College Democrats | University of Wisconsin - Madison

Saturday, October 20, 2007

It's about damn time.
We have a budget. Last night Gov. Doyle, Speaker Huebsch, and Senate Majority Leader Robson announced they've reached a deal...after 111 days. Granted it still needs to pass conference committee and be voted upon by the legislature, both sides have said they'll secure the votes. The deal is basically splitting all the concerns between the parties right down the middle. Both sides conceded something or other.

A few things of note in the compromise:
- cigarette tax increase of $1
- BadgerCare Plus is saved, allowing 98% of Wisconsinites access to health care.
- the Wisconsin Covenant is in and funded (!)
- $159 million more for the UW System
- $32 million more for financial aid

Some thoughts to start up your spectacular Badger Game Day.

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:30 AM 1 comments Post to DemWire

Friday, October 19, 2007

Reflections on Roosevelt|Energy
Earlier today, I was fortunate enough to attend a panel discussion on environmental issues and energy policy, as part of Roosevelt|Energy (brought to us by the Roosevelt Institution). Oftentimes, in discussion of renewable energy production and development, those arguing in favor of policies most-beneficial to ecological preservation and energy independence find themselves somehow in competition with the primacy of economic development. The University's "Conservation, not Convenience" slogan immediately comes to mind.

Patrick Murphy, a UW alumnus, began the discussion with a short presentation regarding his suggested Renewable Energy Portfolio Standard, a system modeled on Texas's program of renewable energy requirements. He addressed this economic issue, pointing out that his research suggests the eventual creation of 185,000 new jobs, and generation of $67B in investments pertaining to renewable energy, with enactment of his or a similar policy. Such developments would do much to help American energy producers compete in a world energy increasingly infiltrated by non-traditional energy sources.

The system Murphy proposes would require that twenty percent of each energy consumer's energy generation to come from renewable sources by 2020 (an increase of one percent annually), while also mandating specific levels of generation required to come from each firm (they can purchase up to 75% from others). Such a policy would enable the multitude of renewable energy technologies to compete among each other, driving prices down in the long run for all such production methods.

Moving to the inevitable controversy among panel members, technological favorability became thie largest political concern, with State Sen. Mark Miller recommending the promotion of specific technologies that may benefit certain communities at the local level. Nevada, for example, offers larger credits for solar power investment. Murphy was explicit in recommending a policy of not favoring any particular technology, advocating for a market-based environment that allows the "best" technologies to succeed. At the state level, Miller's policy likely makes the most political sense, but I would hope that potential national policy makes its best attempt toward market neutrality, recognizing that a renewable energy portfolio as a whole is worth more than the sum of its sources.

Specific subsidies and existing monetary incentives also become a point of issue in the discussion. Tyson Slocum of Public Citizen pointed out that only eight percent of federal energy subsidies pertain to renewable energy, and around sixteen percent focus on increased energy efficiency. Shifting federal dollars away from traditional energy technology is a key step toward the widespread adoption of clean energy, and increased investment in efficiency incentives would do a great deal to ensure that our current technology works as well as possible. Bill Libro of Minnesota Power pointed out that current technology, after all, will not simply disappear.

Naturally, another significant issue was the immediate consequences of removing subsidies and support from older technology, which may still remain more cost-effective that currently-developing renewable energy. Slocum pointed out the fact that elasticity of electricity demand may make the costs experienced by consumers rise in the near-term absent a decline in usage. However, there seemed to be a consensus that technological innovation, streamlined regulation (at the federal level), and reformed subsidies would do a great deal to alleviate these stresses. Libro praised the idea of unified federal standards for this proposed program, and pointed out that costs will decrease in the absence of a patchwork of state regulations that complicate producers' compliance efforts.

In the long run, innovative energy policies such as this have the potential to truly reform our environmental landscape, and put our nation back into the driver's seat of innovation in energy technology. Slocum pointed out that "energy independence" is about more than the oil we purchase from the Middle East. Independence comes from challenging the technological inertia and political clout of energy producers, in an effort to build a new energy industry that taps the best local and regional sources for the clean, efficient, and affordable energy that will one day light our grandchildren's homes.
posted by Micah Lanier at 5:40 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Tom Nelson's Brilliant Stunt
The Badger Herald and Daily Cardinal reported today that State Rep. Tom Nelson is camping out in his capitol office 24/7 until a state budget gets passed. I found this clever for a number of reasons. First, it puts pressure on other legislatures. Are they really putting their all into resolving the budget situation if they're not literally living at the capitol? Granted, Nelson is unmarried and doesn't have any kids so this is probably easier for him to do than many other legislators. Second, it draws attention to the fact that the budget stalemate is affecting real people. Rep. Nelson says he got the idea when he heard from a UW student who was not able to receive the financial aid promised to him. 6000 other students are in the same situation and people need to realize it's the Republicans' refusal to compromise that is the main culprit. Finally, it allows him to absolve himself of any blame for the situation and prevents him from having to face his angry constituents back home (Full disclosure: I'm one of them).

As everyone knows, WI is now the only state without a budget. We're quickly closing in on the record set for the longest period after the budget deadline passed without a budget. The Wisconsin Assembly is EXTREMELY polarized with only one Republican and two Democrats crossing party lines on the budget vote on Oct. 15. There is also very little impetus for resolving the budget stalemate because under Wisconsin law, if a new budget isn't passed, funding continues at the levels from the year before. But this is a de-facto across the board cut because it doesn't take into account inflation, cost-of-living, state revenues, etc. Every day the state goes without a new budget has real consequences and more state legislators need to follow Nelson's example and lock themselves in a room, putting all other business on hold, until it gets resolved. These Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Editorials are probably good places to start.
posted by Ryan Greenfield at 2:16 PM 1 comments Post to DemWire

Thursday, October 18, 2007

"86 Gitmo"

Amnesty International USA, a branch of the crusading human rights organization, just launched its 86 Gitmo Campaign. October 17 (yesterday) marked the 1-year anniversary of the Military Commissions Act (which "tries" detainees in military commissions) and January 11 marks the upcoming sixth anniversary of the first detainee being held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba (aka GTMO or "Gitmo"). These 86 days will be spent protesting, organizing, and mobilizing to persuade the US government to shut down this detainment facility. Events were held right here on the UW-Madison campus yesterday in conjunction with this national campaign.

Why are so many people protesting Guantánamo Bay? Why should we be shutting it down?

Guantánamo Bay, Cuba – or as the US soldiers stationed there call it, Gitmo – has been the focus of much opposition from a wide expanse of sources. Almost six years after it opened, the US military facility at Gitmo currently holds about 300 men on suspicion of terrorism or links to Al-Qaeda or the Taliban. The problem, however, is that the Bush Administration has done little to prove that those men actually belong there and has done little to ensure that the most basic human rights are preserved on this piece of US soil. For the sake of the preservation of the constitutional principles we so dearly cherish and the Geneva Convention that protects us all from many atrocities of war, we must stand up and demand the closing of Gitmo, the “gulag of our times.”

The Bush Administration has treated the Geneva Convention as mere suggestions, rather than the declaration of international tenets of human rights that it is. Take the story of Omar Khadr, for example. A Canadian national, he was arrested in 2002 and declared an “unlawful enemy combatant.” Housed at Gitmo, Khadr was not provided legal access until 2004. He has only been allowed to speak to his family once via telephone – no visitors allowed. Finally in 2007 he was charged before a US military commission. Omar Khadr was 15 in 2002.

Khadr’s case is typical of the reports of human rights violations we hear day after day coming from Guantánamo Bay. Not only are children being treated in methods that explicitly violate the Geneva Convention (not to mention the US judicial system) but practically everyone is being held without being charged with a crime. Some of the detainees may be civilians, not even “enemy combatants.” And yes, “enemy combatant” is the term of choice; President Bush will not call these individuals imprisoned during a time of war Prisoners of War. “Enemy combatants” can be held without charge until the end of hostilities, and who knows when that will be considering the “war on terror” has no clear end. It very well may be forever. And even when they’re charged, they’re not guaranteed a lawyer for their defense! The right to a speedy trial? Due process? Apparently the Bush Administration is choosy with which constitutional principles it wants to support.

The world is beginning to notice the human rights concerns at Guantánamo Bay. The UN investigated allegations of torture. Human Rights Watch, a nongovernmental organization, writes brief after detailed brief on these concerns. The International Committee of the Red Cross found evidence of torture upon inspection. It’s no wonder that Amnesty International has called Gitmo the “gulag of our times.” Where is our country’s leadership in this horrid situation? Dick Cheney scoffed at Amnesty International, saying, “I frankly just don’t take them seriously.” And President Bush, well, he called them “absurd.”

Fortunately, there are better leaders in our country. In 2007 Democrats in the Senate tried to urge action on the prisoners’ behalf. Due to this pressure from Americans and also other governments – including Great Britain – and the UN, Gitmo is slowly being emptied and the detainees returned to their homes.

The truth is that the Bush Administration’s management of Gitmo has set a dangerous precedent for any other government to forego the rule of law in their own “counterterrorism” measures. How can we possibly claim the moral authority to stop human rights violations in North Korea or Burma when we ourselves are restricting those same rights back home? Why should Americans allow second-class justice on American soil? It is time for change at Guantánamo Bay. We as a society must stand up and restore the United States to our former place in society as the champion of democracy.



**edited 10/18/07 at 11:37 pm, merely to add more links**

Labels: , ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 11:08 PM 4 comments Post to DemWire

Wednesday, October 17, 2007

Taking Advantage of the Open Forum
Take a glance sometime at the Critical Badger, Something Verbose, Miles Per Gallentine, The Hippie Perspective, or any of the blogs on campus and you'll see intelligent people trying to provide perspective on the issues facing campus and our greater community today.

Take a look at the comments, especially the anonymous ones, and you'll find something entirely different. Whether it's five people repeatedly posting under random aliases, the blogging community just posting on each other's pages, or genuinely different people taking an interest in campus politics is still up for discussion, but there's something dispicable going on when anonymous comments that trash individuals are allowed to make their way onto these blogs. I'm all for free speech, and I think that blogs are a great place for people to air their views and resurrect something of intelligent discourse in this rapidly moving world. What concerns me is the abuse of free speech, and the libel that can have serious consequences for the people it so quickly attacks.

People should be allowed to say their piece, they should be allowed to criticize the decisions of others, but if they do so in a way that demeans a person they should have to put their name by their comment. If you want to post anonymously, I can understand the need for that too. Some issues are sensitive and are tough to stick your neck out on, but if you're going to stay anonymous you can't go around attacking people.

I don't pretend to control the content of the blogosphere, nor do I think that this humble blog has much influence as the more widely-read publications, but as the final word on the comments posted here I'm announcing a little change in policy.

No more anonymous comments that attack people without merit. Rule #1: Own your shit.


Forward.

-Oliver
posted by Oliver Kiefer at 11:22 PM 6 comments Post to DemWire

Ann Coulter and the Badger Herald
It seems only fitting that soon after I address the rhetoric of Conservative pundits like Michelle Malkin and Ann Coulter, the Badger Herald opinion pages would be abuzz with talk of the latter. I hope that the last mention of this subject in the Herald will be this nugget of joy sent in by a reader:
I think Ann Coulter is wonderful. Who wouldn’t? She’s a bold, outspoken woman who gets her point across by making outrageous comments that have truth to them. As for the “wishing Jews could be perfected” comment, isn’t that just expressing her beliefs? Don’t Jews wish Catholics believed only in the Old Testament?

...

The reason everyone hates Ann Coulter is because she says things that they disagree with. She’s provocative — but she makes people listen to her. If she didn’t say anything stimulating or thought-provoking, the liberals wouldn’t jump on her, and nothing would be made of what she said. Ann Coulter is blunt and says what she means in this age of “political correctness.” I have two of her books, and the latest, “If Democrats Had Any Brains, They’d Be Republicans,” is on the way. If only we would say what we think instead of hiding behind this fear of “offending” other people. If people are scared to say what they think, they will be run over and controlled by those who aren’t.
It's frightening to think that a partition of our society's conservative movement genuinely believes that Coulter's comments have "some truth" or validity to them. Would the author of this letter suggest that Ward Churchill or Kevin Barrett are "wonderful" people merely for "expressing [their] beliefs?" Setting the bar so low for something to be "wonderful" only cheapens political discourse and the opinions of those with genuine concern for our national well-being. Assigning value only to those with the largest platform for expression says nothing about the value of their work, and would serve (especially) to denigrate the work of people unable to express their beliefs for fear of reprisal.

Such boisterous dialogue has apparently led uninformed readers like the Herald reader above to purchase books filled more with hate than even the slightest bit of what the rest of us consider "truth." That writing provides a veil of legitimacy, eschewing the fact that Coulter does not conduct herself in a way that is meant to further dialogue and policy discussion. Instead, she serves only to cause controversy in the name of personal enrichment. Publius at Obsidian Wings has more:
I’m obviously speculating, but I think Coulter is essentially an act. She’s extreme, sure. What she says is abhorrent, agreed. But I think she’s carved out a niche for herself where her interests aren’t necessarily aligned with the conservative movement. She’s a self-promoting outrage artist -- her goal is not to promote an agenda but to stoke the fires. For instance, I have no doubt she was nothing but ecstatic about the public reception to her Edwards comments.

The point is that when Coulter sits at home at night, I suspect she conceives of herself as an entertainer. A shock-artist, sure -- and someone who is deliberately offensive. But, an entertainer nonetheless. And more to the point, she knows what she’s doing. She’s fully in control.
I hope the author of the letter above comes to realize this reality in the years that remain in her university career, and develop a better concept of what constitutes useful political discussion. The value of an idea is not simply one's willingness to express it, just as the value and goodness of any action is not simply a willingness to undertake it. I suggest she examine the actual contributions that Coulter and her ilk have made to the political climate of this nation, and then reconsider such a grand opinion of Coulter's work.
posted by Micah Lanier at 12:52 PM 1 comments Post to DemWire

Tuesday, October 16, 2007

Obama's Visit and the Student Blogosphere
Oliver Kiefer, Suchita Shah, and Justin Rabbach have all provided intelligent reflections (and beautiful pictures) of yesterday's Obama event. Beset by lectures and work, I was unable to attend, but the student press and blogosphere have been abuzz with their own perspectives of the event. Be sure to check out UW Students for Obama's recap.

Chiming in, as can be expected, are veteran bloggers The Critical Badger and Something Verbose. Critical Badger took several pictures at the event, and proved (among other things) that Sara Mikolajczak's name is very difficult to spell. Additionally, the post does a very good job of conveying exactly who it was that showed up yesterday.

Something Verbose spends more time focusing on the content of Obama's speech itself, asking tough questions of Obama's ability to implement his vision for our nation, beyond the rhetoric he offered in his speech. Having not attended the event, I can't really offer an alternative evaluation of the speech itself, but I'm not really convinced that political rallies of marginal political consequence are the best places to explain the "nitty gritty" of public policy. I've always felt that rallies serve more to, well, "rally" supporters with uplifting messages, while leaving concrete policy discussion for candidate websites and mass media consumption.

By virtue of connections to organized labor, I've had excellent views at John Kerry's October '04 speech on West Washington Ave., and Al Gore's on the capital square in 2000. I honestly have no recollection of what either candidate talked about during their time, except for a number of uplifting messages that got the crowd moving. And when I saw John Kerry before that, he mistakenly referred to Main Street Brats – that's all I remember. In the near-term, these events serve to excite more than educate. I would hope then, that that excitement translates to a willingness among students to determine which candidate best serves their values and interests, precipitating a political dialogue that encourages greater understanding of candidates' proposals.

However, I do sympathize with SV in a broader sense, beyond the scope of just this speech. For quite a while now, a popular right-wing media narrative has been that of a Democratic Party sans ideas. Obviously, we hold the opposite to be true (a subject outside of the scope of this post), and demonstrating why will be crucial to the eventual media tone that election coverage will take on. For those interested in concrete policy discussion, be sure to check out John Edwards', Hillary Clinton's, Barack Obama's issues pages. And don't stop there; the primaries and caucuses are still a ways off, and you can never be sure who will begin gaining traction in such a deep pool of candidates.

[In the interest of full disclosure, I am currently undecided with regards to a presidential candidate.]
posted by Micah Lanier at 9:52 PM 1 comments Post to DemWire

It's a beautiful morning......

So, I had a good day yesterday. Two times as I was walking down the street I had things fall out of my pocket, and both times some very nice people picked my things up and made an effort to quick track me down and return them. The first thing I dropped was my ticket to go see Barack Obama. The second was a $20 bill.

After hearing Barack speak, if I had make a choice between the two, I can tell you that I value the experience (priced at $15 by his campaign) much more than a $20 bill.

I believe that is what is so exciting about Barack's run to the white house. He makes us care more about our values than our dollars by showing us that he cares more about a sense of decency towards the American people than he does about cents in the pockets of a corporation.
Barack wants a different government. One that cares about the individual, corporate lobbyists be damned. He wants to actually accomplish things. He wants better education and health care for all people in the wealthiest nation in the world. He wants us to believe.

He wants everything I want. I want to be able to smile instead of cringe when I think of the government. I want the people with the power to make change to do just that.

But.... can it really happen? Can Washington really change? No politician could be this good right? Should we really give him a chance if we think he is going to fail?

I have a ticket and a $20 bill that tells me there is hope for people in America and the world is not as gloomy as it seems. Maybe he deserves a chance.

posted by Justin Rabbach at 6:41 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Monday, October 15, 2007

Pictures from the Obama rally
The rally was nice, I had some great company, and I had a good position. I'm a little inept when it comes to transferring many pictures at the same time to Scott to put up on the site, so I am bypassing that route and going with the only way I know...

(below) CDM's very own Bryon Eagon (also Fundraising Director for UW SFBO) warms up the crowd with a Section O for Obama cheer.














(below)
Obama '08 signs frame the standard flag backdrop. Hundreds of signs were handed out to the crowd.


(below) Senator Obama discusses his vision of hope.

(below) Senator Obama, a Bears fan, thanks all the Cheeseheads for Change in attendance.

(below) Senator Obama speaks at the Monona Terrace Convention Center as part of his Countdown to Change tour.

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 3:41 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Obama
This morning, UW students and folks from all around Madison got their first taste of the 2008 campaign at Senator Obama's "Countdown to Change" rally at the Monona Terrace. By all measures, the Students for Obama volunteers and leadership should be proud of the event they helped to make happen. The energy and excitement on display this morning is unprecedented this early in the campaign, and I can only hope that it is a sign of good things to come.

I know that there were a lot of students there from the College Dems, as well as a lot of people who looked about our age that I had never seen before. It's encouraging to see so many new people getting involved in the campaign, and I hope that trend continues.

If you went to the rally I encourage you to share your thoughts on this blog and to send your pictures to Scott Resnick to be put up on our website. Thanks for attending, and be sure to stop by the next time there's a candidate in town.
posted by Oliver Kiefer at 3:13 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Sunday, October 14, 2007

Rep Obey raising hell at the WI Book Festival

The LaFollette School of Public Affairs and the WI Book Festival brought Congressman Dave Obey (D-WI 7th) to the Memorial Union this evening for a book reading and Q&A session. Rep. Obey, is Chair of the House Appropriations Committee and also sits on the Budget Committee and Joint Economic Committee. Despite his 38 years in the US Congress, he still seems like your neighborly Wisconsinite, caring deeply about the people in his district and Wisconsin’s progressive values.


A chronology of the evening, with little commentary from myself (this man is funny enough and pointed enough without me pointing out his points):

Before the official seminar starts, Rep. Obey is asked by Prof. Bob Haveman of the LaFollette School if he enjoys his chair-ship. “I can’t say that I enjoy it… [but] it is less frustrating” than not being the chair, he replied.

Prof. Haveman introduces Rep. Obey: a floor-covering worker, papermill laborer, student at UW, graduate student for 3 years, harmonica player, member of WI Assembly, author, and the longest-serving US Representative in WI history. The mood is jovial; as Obey prepares to begin – “let me get organized” – Prof Haveman (a man of experienced years) shoots back “That’d be the first time.” And apparently Rep. Obey is a Packers fan who thinks of Congress as a “puzzle factory.”

Author of Raising Hell for Justice, Obey never thought of writing a book until former WI Governor Tommy Thompson laid claim to the LaFollette progressive tradition in his book. “Like hell!” was Obey’s response to that affront, and the book was born on a pontoon boat in Lake Pulaski with a beer in hand.

Rep. Obey read several sections of his book, including the Prologue. There are two signs in his Washington office that he asks any group that is asking him for something to read:

  1. “If what you want costs money, are you willing to go home and tell your friends that we need to cut back on the size of the president’s tax cuts so there is room for it in the budget?”
  2. “Is there anything you want me to do for somebody else that is more important than whatever it is you want me to do for you?”

He also reminisced about some of his memories at the Memorial Union, way back when he led the Students for Humphrey organization (when Humphrey was running against JFK). Jackie Robinson came to endorse Humphrey, and when the press asked him what would he do if Humphrey lost the primary, he said “I’ll vote for Nixon!” As true today as it was back then – “nobody in politics likes to be surprised.”

When asked about the “policy window” post-2006 midterm election, Rep. Obey explained that the Democrats had to first complete what the Republican Congress had left unfinished. There had been no domestic appropriation bills until then, just continuing resolution after continuing resolution. Now, after finally being able to distribute $17 billion to high-priority budget items including veteran’s healthcare, education and Pell Grants, medical research, energy conservation, local law enforcement, etc., Obey says that once we get enough pressure on Republican Senators (we have 4, we need 6 more to reach the 60 votes needed to end debate in the Senate), the Democrats will finally be able to have “realist instead of ethereal control” of Congress. And get more done.

Peter Rickman, Madison/campus-area leader in John Edwards’s camp, commended the Representative for endorsing former Senator Edwards. Edwards, Rep. Obey believes, “has the greatest capacity to win by the largest margin,” bringing with him more seats in the House and Senate. “I agree with issues that Edwards keeps front and center…. I’m not into incrementalism.”

The erosion of funding for energy research since Carter is “almost criminal.” I’m sure Nobel laureate Al Gore would agree with you there, Obey.

President Bush is a “hypocrite.” The President can’t cut taxes in wartime and then criticize Congress for trying to fund domestic programs, laments Obey. (This man is a straight-talker, not afraid of speaking his mind.) “Nobody in this society is sacrificing in this war except military families.” Recently, as Chair of the Appropriations Committee, Rep. Obey has promised that no bill for funding for the Iraq War will leave his committee without a timeline.

Campaign Finance Reform: “The need for money in politics is pushing both parties to the right, towards corporate sectors.” Obey briefly outlined a dramatically new campaign finance reform plan he supports that will essentially eliminate all private money in the general election, and he’ll sponsor a constitutional amendment if he has to get around the Supreme Court rulings that “equate money with speech.” “Campaigns aren’t financed by immaculate conception… [or] the tooth fairy.”

The most fundamental change in politics during his tenure in Congress: LBJ’s support of voting rights for minorities. Which led to the complete disintegration of the traditional Southern Democrats and thus a nationwide shakeup of both parties.

"Gerry Ford" is the best President he has worked with.

After 9/11, “we had the world with us. We could have done anything. [Bush] threw it all away.”

Trying to add money to homeland security after the anthrax scare convinced Rep. Obey that President Bush “just doesn’t know what he doesn’t know.” “He [Bush] is our biggest national security risk.” Obey told a story of how he and other Congressmen, including good ol’ Ted Stevens (Republican Senator from Alaska and at that time President Pro Tempore), approached President Bush in the White House asking for additional funding for the CDC, NSA, CIA, FBI, etc etc. “Some of you want to spend more on Homeland Security than I do. If you appropriate even $1 more, I’ll veto it,” said President Bush. Obey retorted in that meeting that the younger President Bush was the first President he had worked with whose “mind has been closed before the subject is even open.” I wonder how many people know that President Bush had a press conference about “the great things that Customs was doing about port security but then pocket vetoed the money to do it.”

In response to a question about SCHIP expansion: “He [Bush] lets ideology turn into political theology.” “Ayn Rand dominates Washington nowadays.”

“Jimmy Carter was the smartest person I ever met in the White House… but he had the soul of a …fuss-budget engineer.”

“If Reagan was taking on new material, he made Daffy Duck look good.”

“Clinton hugely underestimated how much the Right Wing was out to get him.”

Newt Gingrich and Dennis Hastert “destroyed the committee system.” Newt because “he was so hell-bent on getting things done” that he lost the careful thought and analysis that comes with committees. And Hastert “destroyed Congress’s ability to analyze before it acted.”

“Politics is supposed to be 2 independent branches of government – not 2 institutionalized parties.”

Labels:

posted by Suchita Shah at 10:14 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire


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.