College Democrats | University of Wisconsin - Madison

Saturday, February 16, 2008

Debate now available online
If you missed Monday's College Republicans v. College Democrats Debate, hosted by The Badger Herald, between Oliver and Sara, it's now available online at Wisconsin Eye.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 5:40 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Thursday, February 14, 2008

A Valentine's Day gift from the BH
...courtesy of John Sprangers.

We all know that Oliver did a fabulous job at the debate on Monday. But here is what a casual observer thought:

At the other podium was College Democrats Chair Oliver Kiefer, who appeared to have been born for the express purpose of political debate. In a real tour de force, Mr. Kiefer wedded eloquent oration with expansive political knowledge and stole the show.
...
Monday night Mr. Kiefer smoothly transitioned from trade policy to teachers’ salaries, from Iraq to international labor standards, all the while finessing his presentation with a minor encyclopedia’s volume of statistics, compelling moral appeals and the tone and cadence of a precocious politician.

Yes, this is shameless promotion for Oliver and the organization. But I believe he (and everyone who helped make the debate a success) deserves it.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 10:25 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Monday, January 07, 2008

Truthiness in campaigns
Truthiness becomes truth when enough people hear and believe it.

The New York Times has an "investigative" piece on the facts behind some of the rhetoric of the campaign:

Mike Huckabee, thee Republican former governor of Arkansas, said he had “lowered taxes.” While he did lower some taxes as governor, he raised others — with the net effect that tax increases outweighed tax cuts by some $500 million, as he seemed to acknowledge when pressed by Mr. Romney.

...

In the Republican debate on Saturday, Mr. Romney made a claim against Mr. McCain during a heated back-and-forth on immigration, saying: “I don’t describe your plan as amnesty in my ad. I don’t call it amnesty.” But Mr. Romney has run television and Internet commercials and has sent mailings describing Mr. McCain’s immigration proposal as just that: amnesty.

He said in a television interview Sunday morning that he had not seen the advertisements. “I was simply incorrect,” Mr. Romney said on “This Week with George Stephanopolous on ABC.


It reminds me of the 04 debates when Dick Cheney said he had never met Edwards until they met that day on the debate stage, though they had sat next to each other at some breakfast and other times before that.

It's so easy to say whatever you want or whatever you can in a debate and not have to back it up until the next day. By then the majority of the audience that heard the initial statement isn't listening anymore, and it's just the pundits and journalists left to make it a big deal. However, the Saturday debate format, with more of a conversational style, allowed for at least some rebuttal instead of one turn - final answer in a traditional debate format.

Labels: ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:55 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Saturday, January 05, 2008

New Hampshire ABC/Facebook debates
It's Saturday night in Holmen, Wisconsin.... to keep me entertained I just watched the double-header Republican and Democrat New Hampshire debates. What it all boiled down to: Big Bad Government vs. Change and Secure the Borders the Muslims are Coming! vs. Secure the American Dream.

My picks for the winners -
Republicans: Gov. Mitt Romney. Although largely by power of elimination and some votes from Wyoming. Romney came across as the nice guy getting needled by Sen. McCain and the rest on the flip-flopping charge that really didn't seem to stick tonight (to the average viewer). Plus, after his showing in Iowa, Gov. Huckabee didn't impress as was necessary to court New Hampshire voters. He had the chance to show that he was electable beyond Iowa, and he blew it by not defining his positions more and just sitting quietly as a spectator. Mayor Giuliani... well, to borrow from Sen. Biden, his sentences contained a subject, a verb, and 9/11... the Islamic terrorist threat...and 9/11 again...radical Islamic jihad...and (in case you missed it) 9/11. And Ron Paul, although sounding quite intelligible and refraining from mentioning home schooling (though I was waiting for it when he said education and schools), was treated as a joke by the other 5 candidates on the stage.

Democrats: Gov. Bill Richardson. His eloquence and his reiteration that he is a Governor with executive experience stood out tonight amidst the three-way catfight. He rose above the fray and gained a lot of publicity and was able to clearly make his case. Senator Clinton gained points in toughness, and Senators Obama and Edwards apparently gained a friendship. If for no other reason, Richardson won because he was able to reach thousands of voters that may not have otherwise heard of him or heard about his policies. Senators Obama, Edwards, and Clinton already had that exposure, and a lot of voters already have their conceptions about them. But Richardson I think had the chance tonight - and took full advantage of it - to introduce himself to a larger crowd. The question as always is Will it convert into votes on Tuesday?


My summary of the Republican debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes):
  • America is the greatest country in the world. Our military is the strongest in the world. Islamo-fascism will kill us all. America! Fuck yeah! God Bless the USA.
    (I could stop here, and that would have effectively summarized the whole Republican debate...)
  • Ron Paul is there! I feel sorry for Rep. Kucinich that he wasn't invited to the Democratic debate but this newcomer and fellow renegade got himself invited to the Republican debate. I guess winning the MySpace primary really did mean something for Paul.
  • The question of "running on or running away from" Bush foreign policy.
    • Rumsfeld gets a beating from all sides (Huckabee: don't let the politicians make the decisions).
    • Radical Islam, Islamic jihad, and Islamo-fascism are buzzwords that are meant to strike fear (and hatred) in the hearts of the voters - and after repeating them enough like the candidates did tonight, the message does get through
    • Giuliani: the Patriot Act and electronic surveillance is "very, very good" AND we should increase the size of the military immediately (smell that? ah the draft cards are burning)
    • Some embrace the Bush Doctrine of pre-emption. Romney defends him, and McCain gives him credit for his oh-so-great leadership.
    • McCain: "America is not safe, America is safer."
    • Ron Paul: They "don't attack us because we're free and prosperous" but because we invade their country. I was surprised that the other candidates laughed at this and so vehemently opposed this reasoning.
    • Fred Thompson: "We should only go in where we should and where we are able to." Uhhhh thanks for that brilliant insight. You really cleared up things for me.
    • Huckabee (the candidate that has openly distanced himself from President Bush): He supports the President but his [Bush's] policy has problems. Then, Gov. Huckabee, do you support him because golly gee he's a nice guy?
    • Huckabee: "I'm not running for George Bush's third term."
    • Romney and Huckabee try to one up each other on the history lesson about Sayyid Qatb by pulling random dates out of their heads. Ok, so you're smarter than the current President. Congratulations.
  • Asked about the constancy of their principles:
    • McCain: I am a veteran.
    • Romney: Family values. America is great. At the "heart of our strength is the family." Moms and dads (but don't even think about two mommies or two daddies!).
    • Giuliani: Ronald Reagan. I laid out my 12 commitments. End illegal immigration. Appoint strict constructionist judges.
    • [Charlie Gibson, the moderater, goes around and points out how each of them has waffled on issues...except Paul who just switched parties]
    • Giuliani: But wait! Ronald Reagan!
    • Huckabee: "...the simple answer for me is all the way back to the document that gave us birth. And it goes like this: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that we are endowed by our creator with certain inalienable rights, these being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That we are created equal." Really, Mike? Is that how the Declaration goes? Maybe you haven't distanced yourself from our current President enough...
    • Thompson tries to one-up Huckabee with a lesson on the 9th and 10th Amendments. Really, guys, if you invested in our public schools a bit we wouldn't need you teaching us civics on TV.
  • Healthcare - why can't we afford insurance for everybody?
    • Private insurance is good, socialized medicine is bad.
    • McCain: "problem isn't quality - it's inflation."
    • Romney stands by his Massachusetts plan.
    • Paul: don't print any more money!
    • Thompson: never going to achieve total coverage
    • Romney likes mandates...but only his kind
    • Giuliani: Health Savings Accounts
    • McCain attacks Big Pharma (and wants reimportation of drugs from Canada)
    • Romney defends Big Pharma
  • Illegal immigration
    • We like legals, we swear we do.
    • McCain: "God's children" and we need biometric documents to keep track of everyone
    • How many times can you mention that you are painting this as a national security issue?
    • Romney: id card of some sort
    • Giuliani: Build a fence, build a technological fence. Tamperproof ID card. We "can't throw out 12 million people" so focus on those who have committed crimes.
    • Y'all have to read and write and speak English good now, ya hear?
    • Romney: get in line -- outside the country
    • Giuliani: Ronald Reagan!
    • Thompson defines amnesty as being rewarded for your illegal behavior in any way and advocates "enforcement by attrition."
    • Huckabee: The "government didn't escort them over the border in the first place, so the government doesn't have to take them back."
    • Paul: The tamperproof ID opens the door for a national ID card - bad idea.
  • What don't you like about Barack Obama?
    • Change is good, and Obama is an inspiring figure (they all agree on that).
    • Romney: Washington is broken. I've lived the change.
    • Thompson: He's adopted the position of every major liberal interest group (painting Obama as extreme left-wing).
    • McCain: Dealing with radical Islamic extremists requires "a lot of knowledge, a lot of experience, and a lot of background."
    • Giuliani: Obama wants a "precipitous withdrawal in Iraq."
    • Huckabee: Welllll, the 2nd Amendment, sanctity of life, same-sex marriage
    • Paul: Young people like us. But I don't like his welfare state. And c'mon, Obama's not going to talk about getting rid of the income tax. But I will! Free markets!
  • Gas prices are high. Duh.
    • Paul: Gold standard would have fixed everything.
    • McCain: Alternative energy good, greenhouse gas bad.
    • Thompson: Cleaner coal and tap into the oil reserves in the US (aka ANWR).
    • Giuliani: We need to think about "energy independence on the scale of putting a man on the moon."
    • Huckabee: It is possible to achieve energy independence in 10 years.
    • Romney: No, it's not. But it's possible to be "on track" to get there. This is our "highest domestic economic priority."

My summary of the Democratic debate (the only direct quotes are actually in quotes) (Apologies for incompleteness...I got so caught up in listening I forgot to take notes sometimes):
  • Nuclear terrorism/Osama bin Laden/national security
    • Obama: We should go into western Pakistan without the agreement of the Pakistani government if necessary. Al Qaeda is stronger now than it has been at any point since 2001.
    • Edwards: Go get Osama. We need to deal with nuclear nonproliferation in the long term. Musharraf is a radical, and we need to rid the world of nuclear weapons.
    • Richardson: Diplomacy comes first in any foreign policy situation. We would ask Musharraf to step aside using "leverage" and a "high-level envoy." We act when we have real and actionable intelligence and the leader aka Musharraf is incapable.
    • Clinton: We need more NATO troops training the Afghan army. We have to be careful not to inflame the Pakistan/India conflict. Musharraf must share the security responsibility of the nukes. This is the "forgotten front line of the war on terrorism."
  • What if a nuclear weapon hits a US city?
    • Edwards: Find out who's responsible and go after them. And stop them. But we must be strong and calm.
    • Obama: This is our most significant foreign policy issue. We must rebuild the nuclear nonproliferation treaty.
    • Clinton: "There is no safe haven" for "state-less terrorists."
    • Richardson: "Transnational challenges requires international cooperation."
  • Concept of change.
    • Clinton: We're all advocating for change.
    • Edwards: Obama and I are "powerful voices for change." The "forces of status quo" are attacking us.
    • Clinton: "Making change is not about what you believe; it's about results." "I'm running on 35 years of change."
    • Richardson: I've been in "hostage negotiations that are a lot more civil than this." "Is experience kinda a leper?"
    • Edwards: We have to "fight for the future of the middle class." Costco and AT&T are good corporations.
    • Obama: The "American Dream is slipping away."
  • Has the surge in Iraq worked?
    • Clinton: It was designed to create time for the Iraqi government to fix itself, but there has been "no political action. They're not willing to do what they need to do."
    • Richardson: There is "no military solution." There is "only a political solution."
    • Obama: "Two years later, we're back where we started two years ago." We must be "as careful getting out as we were careless getting in."
    • Edwards: The President must consult the uniformed advisors.
    • Richardson: As Governor, I'm sick of flying flags at half-mast.
  • Likeability.
    • Clinton: "Well that hurts my feelings." [being called not really likeable]
    • Obama: "You're likeable enough.
  • Responding to Republican attack on Obama.
    • Obama: I was watching football. But seriously, they'd do that to any Democrat.
  • Is relative youth a detriment?
    • Richardson. I'm the only one who has balanced a budget. I've lowered taxes, improved education, insured 12 million children. I'm the only one who has negotiated with foreign governments. "Both parties have been failures in dealing with energy policy." We need American people to sacrifice a bit. I'm glad Al Gore stayed out of the race. JFK JFK JFK!
    • Edwards: I'm the son of a millworker. I don't take money from lobbyists or special interest PACs. I'll fight for the middle class. I'm the son of a millworker. Health insurance companies killed Natalie Sarkisyan. I'm the son of a millworker. Where is their voice in this democracy?
    • Obama: Bet on the American people. They're ready for change. I prohibited lobbyists from buying meals from Congress... but there's something about standing up and sitting down that confuses you, Charlie Gibson.
    • Clinton: "Reality break." I'm going to be the buzzkill for this session of warm-fuzzies and talk about how "words are not action" even though they are "beautifully presented and passionately felt." We need to "translate talk into action and feeling into reality."
    • Clinton follows the footsteps of Gerald Cox and his favorite word tendentious and pulls out "excoriated" to describe what Edwards and Obama did to the special interests.
    • Clinton: Bill Clinton rocked. "Change is hard, but change is possible."
    • Edwards: "Entrenched interests are literally stealing our children's future."
    • Obama: America is hungry, "hungry for something different." "Yes we can."
    • Richardson: "You guys and the President get nothing done" and the burden is on us Governors. I'm sick of Washington bickering - we need bipartisanship.
    • Edwards: It is the responsibility of the President to unite. I'm going to "fight FOR the American people" because "I have been in the trenches."
  • Global warming and the carbon tax.
    • Richardson: Carbon tax is a bad idea because it is not a mandate. Cap-and-trade is the way to go.
    • Obama. Cap-and-trade, I agree. We must shield the consumer from the cost, though. Change your lightbulbs and insulate your homes, everybody!
    • Clinton: The economy is slipping towards a recession. The energy issue will jumpstart economic efficiency.
  • The fate of the Bush tax cuts
    • Clinton: The middle class will get the "tax relief they deserve." Don't cut the taxes on the wealthy.
    • Edwards: We have to help the homeless veterans and help people find jobs. The "trade and tax policy is bleeding American jobs." I would know - I'm the son of a millworker.
    • Obama: We must close tax loopholes and offer specific tax relief immediately. It's a change.
    • Richardson: We need a balanced budget and line item veto authority for the President. And I want to talk about education! We must improve schools, pay our teachers better, end NCLB, emphasize the arts, and fund science and math education.
  • What do you wish you hadn't said in the debates so far? What would you take back if you could?
    • Clinton: We're all great candidates, and the Democrats are in such contrast to the Republicans.
    • Richardson: "I was asked who my favorite Supreme Court justice was, and I said, dead or alive? ...I should have stuck to the alive because I then said, "Whizzer" White, because I idolize John F. Kennedy and I figured if he appointed "Whizzer" White, this was a great Supreme Court justice. Well then I find out that "Whizzer" White was against Roe versus Wade, against civil rights. You know, so that's -- that wasn't a good one."
    • Edwards: "I made the horrendous mistake of teasing Hillary about her jacket. And I want her to know I think you look terrific tonight."
    • Obama: "Here's an area where I agree with Hillary." We need to be "ending the politics of fear."

All four of the Democratic candidates would do a great job as President. We're lucky we have such a great field... but I guess unlucky in that we have to pick just one. But, if tonight's debates were any indication, that one Democrat will be able to crush any of those six Republicans in November.

Labels: , ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:55 PM 10 comments Post to DemWire

Thursday, October 25, 2007

The State Budget
By tomorrow morning, Wisconsin will have a budget. After over 100 days of being overdue, Democrats and Republicans finally settled on a compromise budget, voted on it, passed it, and sent it off to Governor Doyle for signing.

Neither side is particularly happy with the budget. Democrats got expansion for health care, but not the universal health care plan they had hoped for. Republicans got an overall decrease in spending percentage-wise, but not as much as they had hoped. Everybody wins, but everybody feels like they lost at the same time.

That's the nature of compromise - no body gets exactly what they want, but everyone agrees to it. In this era of partisan politics, we often forget that the very reason democratic government exists is to allow lawmakers with opposing viewpoints to come together and create law that everyone can live with, if not agree on. As we can clearly see from this recent battle for the budget, when no one is willing to compromise, the government, and society, comes to a screeching halt.

Government agencies were shutting down, unsure of how much money they had on hand to spend. Public schools were |---this close---| to starting to consider cutting programs due to lack of funding. People were growing restless, and the Legislature became the laughingstock of not only the state, but I'm pretty sure that much of the nation was shaking their head. This is not representative government. This is schoolyard bickering.

I'm glad the budget passed. I'm also glad nobody is completely satisfied with the results. Perhaps it will send a lesson to our state representatives that they need to come to the table and negotiate before trying to pass budgets. But, since I read news that legislators will be trying to amend the budget with legislation soon, maybe I'm just naive.

Democrats and Republicans are both at fault here. Neither side is willing to listen, and both are so wrapped up in their own agendas that sometimes they fail to understand that by negotiating, compromising, and making deals, legislators are actually doing the job that we elected them for - establishing laws to help guide the people of Wisconsin, and to provide for their needs.

On a related note, I look forward to seeing many people at the Union tomorrow morning to watch Governor Doyle sign the new budget. May we all quickly celebrate, and get on with our lives past this utterly ridiculous ordeal.

Labels: ,

posted by Paul Axel at 8:34 PM 0 comments Post to DemWire

Sunday, September 30, 2007

Debating debates
Erik Opsal recently commented, jokingly, on his blog (The Hippie Perspective) that Fred Thompson, Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, and John McCain don't care about black people (an allusion to Kanye West) because they skipped the debate at the HBCU (historically black college/university) Morgan State University. Although this was meant as somewhat of a joke, there is quite a bit of truth in it.

James Q replied to Erik's comment, saying
"It could just be the message they aren't going to waste their time doing 10293984884849202 debates before the race has really heated up...Taking this as meaning they don't care about black people seems just a bit off base...something I would expect Drudge to say (concerning the Democrats, though)."

I disagree with James Q. Candidates do debates in specific locations or of varying flavors when they want to target a particular demographic. For instance, YouTube debates target that elusive 18-24 crowd...you know, the one who somehow survives without a land line or reading a daily newspaper.

Sen. Edwards proved the importance of reaching out to particular crowds by appearing on an MTV.com/MySpace forum. He catered to the young/hip who care about more than boxers or briefs (read: Clinton's MTV experience back in 1992).

An interesting new development for this election cycle has been Spanish-language debates. All but one major Democratic candidate participated in a debate that translated all of their responses to Spanish, airing on Univisión. The channel planned to also have a Republican debate in Spanish airing a week later, but that was canceled due to a lack of interest: only John McCain agreed to the debate. With Latinos as the largest minority group in the US, you'd think that the Presidential candidates would want these voters to hear them out.

And now, with the major GOP candidates skipping the Morgan State debate, they've marginalized the second-largest minority group in the US. Hosted by PBS, the All-American Presidential Forums are the first in prime-time with a panel exclusively of color, and they both took place at HBCUs (the Democratic forum was at Howard University). Again, the message the absent candidates are sending is one that doesn't prioritize the minority communities and specifically the minority voters.

If the defense is that candidates have so many other debates they're doing, then why choose Reagan's Presidential Library, FOXNews (in Columbia, SC), and FOXNews (in Durham, NH)? Apparently Romney, McCain, Thompson and Giuliani would rather talk to the same people twice than talk to folks at Morgan State or on Univisión.

In contrast, the Democratic candidates continue to prove that they are the ones who can "Build the House." Howard University, South Carolina State University (another HBCU), the NAACP convention, the YouTube/Google debate simulcast on CNN en Español (yes, another Spanish-language debate), the YearlyKos convention (They get it. Bloggers matter.), the AFL-CIO Working Families Vote forum, Logo/HRC (on LGBT issues), Univisión, and so on.

If the variety of debates weren't an issue - if every debate were created equal - do you think the Democratic candidates would be spending so much time diversifying their debate schedule? When Romney, Giuliani, Thompson, and McCain did not appear at the Morgan State University debate, it wasn't a question of time or a question of how many is too many. It was a question of priorities.

Labels: , , ,

posted by Suchita Shah at 9:42 AM 1 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

 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.