Political Science*

So I realize that there should be restrictions on science, but as Bush used his first veto and talked about this moral boundary that we can't cross with this newest bill on stem cell research, I just cringed. Frankly, I don't think any President should become the moral authority on everything, especially a President had torture in his prisons and more scandals in his administration lately than I can count. But suddenly the Religious Right has given him this authority. Yet, how about our moral obligation to be the leader in finding cures to Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, spinal cord injury, strokes, and more? I never try to look at any issue in strictly a utilitarian point of view but I don't believe that embryonic stem cells are life and I think the research that can be done with them has more possibilities than we could probably imagine. And I'm not just totting some party line or interest group line. There's a reason why this passed the Republican controlled House and Senate. Even uber conservative Senator Trent Lott from Mississippi voted for this.

For all those science kids who scoff at us studying political science or going into government, wake up to the fact that you can't completely seperate science from politics, for better and for worse. For better we have the power to grant you millions of dollars for research on ground breaking science; for worse we can cater to a narrow constituent base and withhold that funding. It's just a reality.

In the end, I think Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), chairman of the Judiciary Committee summed it best. "Yesterday [he] compared Bush's position to those who opposed Columbus, locked up Galileo, and rejected anesthesia, electricity, vaccines and rail travel. Such attitudes 'in retrospect look foolish, look absolutely ridiculous,' said Specter." --Washington Post

*To give full credit, the title political science comes from segment that NBC Nightly News did on this issue.

Bush's First Veto?

Rove: "Bush would use first veto on stem-cell bill"

I didn't realize that Bush hadn't vetoed anything, but I guess it makes sense when Republicans have control of both chambers of Congress.

I'm glad (and even a little surprised) that the House passed this and I really want the Senate to pass this. It will be interesting though to see if Bush would actually go through with what Rove says he will. Ugh Rove. The fact that Bush would veto this angers me enough but the fact that Rove is still issuing statements for the White House gets under my skin even more.

Finally, we'll see how the Republicans and their presumptive nominees for President in 2008 deal with this. I remember last time they were debating this, it led to a big showdown between First and Santorum (hmm, his race has been flying under the radar lately).

Wedge Issues

Wedge issue is a social or political issue, often of a divisive or otherwise controversial nature, which is used by one political group to split apart or create a "wedge" in the support base of an opposing political group, with a view to enticing voters to give their support to the first group.

Both the Republican and Democrat Parties have been accused of using social issues as wedge issues to divide the opposing voting base. For example, some Republican strategists hoped that African Americans, a traditionally liberal voting bloc yet also one that possesses some of the most conservative views on matters of homosexuality, may be more inclinded to vote for the Republican Party because of their opposition to the gay marriage issue. Likewise, Democratic strategists have hoped that the issue of stem cell research could be used as a wedge issue against the right, since some Republicans support the research, while others are morally opposed to the use of fetal cells in research. --Wikipedia

It's that time of the year again! When Congressional recess is around the corner and members roll out wedge issues to divide the opposing party in the upcoming November election. While both parties may do them, the Democrats frankly suck at them (which may be a good thing fundamentally but bad electorally). The wedge issue du jour is flag burning. Is there anything less relevant to our country right now? Never mind the war, economic woes, poverty, even high gas prices. We're really debating flag burning...something that's happened publicly 2x in the past 5 years?

So here's your time to post which wedge issue you think is most ridiculous...and if you're really bored, give your reason why. For me, gay marriage is #1 and flag burning is #2 (my reason can be found here). What's yours?

Example #1 of why I like Democrats

Read this.

:)

Futbol Fundraising?

So you know this new graduate is really bored when she watches multiple World Cup games a day, finds an article about politics in the World Cup, and writes about it.

While skimming the LA Times, I came across this odd article: World Cup Tickets to Help Fund Ballot Measures. "Assembly Speaker Fabian Nuñez is selling tickets to Berlin games for $25,000 to help raise money for November proposals."

I'm not sure which is more interesting/amusing to me. The fact that "for $25,000, corporations can send representatives to Berlin to attend three World Cup matches with Nuñez, an avid soccer fan. The package includes the match tickets, three nights in a hotel, travel to the soccer stadium and tickets for pregame parties, but not the airfare to Europe." Or the fact that one of these propositions deals with term limits, my nerdy poli sci obsession that I've written multiple papers on.

It's definitely a creative idea (even if it's for propositions....I'm not a fan of propositions). I just kind of wonder if it's legal...I guess it is if they're writing about it in the newspaper without lambasting the plan.

An Immigration ACT

So the latest state buzz has been about Arnold standing up to President Bush and refusing to send 1,500 more national guard to do border patrol after California had already sent 1,000. At first I thought it was Bush just getting shafted by his own party, again, but I never thought of the whole situation as an orchestrated act. Here's one Democratic take:

Bob Mulholland, an advisor to Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides, said: "This so-called request [from the White House] was a phony political request to try to give Schwarzenegger political cover: 'Look it. I'm standing up to Bush.' But last week Schwarzenegger was a French poodle in Bush's lap — authorizing 1,000 stressed-out, overextended National Guard members to spend weeks and months at the border, even though many of them have done two tours in Iraq."

Who knows if this was all planned out; it is the oppositions job to come up with conspiracy theories but I frankly wouldn't be surprised if this was all a ploy. It'll be interesting to see if this strategy (if it is a strategy) will work or totally backfire. Arnold's walking a very fine line between his conservative base that wants more border patrol and the large Latino vote in California.

Finally if it is all an act, shame on people for playing politics with our National Guardsmen. I think they've already been disrespected enough.

Check out more here: Gov. Refuses Bush Request for Border Troops

Arnold v. Phil: it begins.

Today, some of the other members of Bruin Democrats and I talked with the Angelides campaign about the best possible ways to publicize our guy Phil, highlight the differences between he and Arnold, and the all-important aspect of actually getting college students to vote.

Rallies, facebook, celebrities, campus visits by the Treasurer himself, and even a Phil cut-out to display while tabling were all mentioned. Does anyone else have any ideas?

He's got a point...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-op-nunberg11jun11,0,3792221.story?coll=la-home-commentary

However, who read George Lakoff's "Don't think of an elephant" with us last quarter? It seems like the author of this article (also a professor at Berkeley) just ripped off some of his ideas.

False Attacks on Angelides

June 1, 2006

The False Attacks on Angelides

Steve Westly's latest attack ad against Phil Angelides is an outright lie. "The Truth About Tahoe" ad alleges that Phil Angelides was the developer of a big condo development in Tahoe. It claims that he damaged the environment. In fact, Angelides purchased part-time ownership of a single condo - after it was built - for his family's use a few weeks a year.

Additional fact: when Phil Angelides discovered that the actual developer had done damage, he filed a lawsuit against him. It was the developer-not Phil Angelides-who was responsible and who was fined for the incident.

Phil Angelides has been endorsed by the Sierra Club, the California League of Conservation Voters and over 70 leading environmentalists from all over the state. That's because they actually researched his environmental record.

On June 6, Vote for Phil Angelides, he's always on our side and he's the candidate who's tough enough to beat Arnold Schwarzenegger in November.

For more information go to http://seiuaction.org/ct/T1ahVd51jcW3/.

Thanks to Derek for sending this out.

Mission Accomplished?

Today is the third anniversary of Bush's infamous "Mission Accomplished" speech, which said that the Iraq war was over. It seems that the mission isn't actually accomplished. What does this mean for the Democratic party? Can it help us get in office? For more information, check out an article about it on cnn.com: click here.

ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION

What to do about illegal immigration?

Make illegal immigrants felons?
Build a wall?
Allow a guest worker program?
Flat out amnesty?
More border patrol agents?
Fine employers?

POST YOUR VIEWS AND DISCUSS!

Karma

I'm a firm believer that consequences of actions will always follow a person, whether they're good or bad. And while it seemed that the Republicans were getting away with absurd amounts of things, it finally seems to be catching up to them.

As a Bruin fan, yesterday's loss was tough. But there was one good piece of news yesterday: Tom DeLay will not be seeking re-election. It's a pretty big symbol of Republican leadership taking a hit and I'm certainly glad that the "Hammer" is gone (ever since I was a Captiol intern and saw him give a fire and brimstone speech about gay marriage, I've been scared of him). I can't judge if he's guilty, he'll go through a trial for that, but with everything he's done like the absurd gerrymandering in Texas, Congress is better without him. I'm not sure if will have any effect on the 2006 midterm elections, but it's a good thing nonetheless.

And in another piece of news of a person who used up all their good Karma: Katherine Harris's core staff all bailed on her.

Looks like Jack Abramoff won't be enjoying spring break like the rest of us. He's looking forward to a pretty chunk of time in prison instead. Granted, he still only received the minimum sentence allowed under federal guidelines, but six years is still six years, no?

There's more to be found here.

Love,
Lauren

Hopefully good news for you, not so much for the President

Happy 10th/Finals week to you all. I hope you are all having a better time at things than this man.

Bush's poll numbers have plummeted, and are now at 33%.

Not only that, but he is losing support from his base by the 10s of percent.

Additionally, 'incompetent' is now the word most associated with the president. Followed shortly by 'idiot' and 'liar'



Outline of all the results here. I definitely suggest looking at it.

Domestic Spying