27 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(12/08/06 12:42am)
I was standing in my kitchen, frosting an American flag onto a cake, when I saw the headline proclaiming that Rep. Charles B. Rangel's intent to introduce a bill calling for the draft to be reinstated.\nRangel, a New York Democrat set to chair the House Ways and Means Committee, has attempted to reintroduce the draft on grounds that it would "force policymakers to deliberate more carefully before deciding to go to war," according to the Washington Post. His opponents claim that the draft "would not be acceptable to the American people today," and they point out that exemptions, claimed mostly by the wealthy and educated, undermined the draft during Vietnam.\nBut Democratic leaders brushed aside Rangel's proposal in late November.\nPerhaps Democrats, who are missing the underlying political implications, should reconsider the strategy. Even the threat of the draft appearing in the congressional agenda would spark fierce opposition from nearly every side, not to mention from comfortable citizens content to watch Iraq on their TV screens. However, where there is outrage, anger and fierce opposition, you also find attention, involvement and deliberation -- not only by Congress but also by the average politically apathetic American.\nBack to the cake. I was frosting it for a childhood friend who joined the Marines out of high school and who will soon be serving in Iraq, as he volunteered to do. \nBut this is about who I wasn't frosting a cake for.\nI wasn't frosting that cake for someone like me, who has been fortunate enough through scholarship or circumstance to concentrate on other pursuits; someone who has been fortunate enough to remain apathetic and unaffected by Iraq; someone who, like most Americans, will never have to deal with this war first-hand, much less have to deal with being called to serve in it with no exemptions or exceptions. \nWhat kind of effect would the threat of reinstating the draft have on our "great democracy" -- one of a low voter turnout, a politically apathetic public and an unpopular administration fighting a war essentially by itself, with only help from volunteers? It is a war that is being fought without affecting the standard of living for the rest of us.\nKnowing this county's promising collegiate sons and daughters could be pulled from their dorms and thrust into barracks, how much more vigilantly would our county watch its elected representatives? Forced to deal with this war personally, every day, in a real and threatening way, we would have to demand more from our leaders, and in turn they would be forced to respond.\nThey would understand that it could be not only their children, and the children of their constituents but also the children of their big-money supporters. No exceptions. \nThough Rangel's objectors may be correct that Americans would never accept the draft, the fact is they don't have to. They only must demand their representatives to consider whether they would call for war if their own children would be the ones fighting it.
(11/17/06 3:43am)
If I must admit it, I actually do enjoy watching the occasional Fox News clip or Bill O'Reilly video. And, though it's not something that I have ever considered publicly owning up to before, I have watched my fair share. Once a month, once a week, maybe even once a day.\nSometimes we all just need a good laugh, and I've found that I can always rely on not only the Fox network's actual "news" to provide a good chuckle, but that even more heartwarming are its assorted political commentators. The spectrum of sweeping opinions expressed by these icons bring quality humor that only Fox can provide. More times than not, when I turn on "The O'Reilly Factor," it's so hilarious to hear a crotchety old man spew nonsensical verse laden with self-coined terms like "secular progressive agenda" and "San Francisco values" that it's very easy to just kick back and have a good guffaw. With this being said, as the midterm election season came to a close, there was one thing that I had anticipated nearly as much as the results of the elections themselves: I just couldn't wait to hear O'Reilly's reaction. Glorious would be the day that he writhed in self-defeat in front of that huge percentage of the nation that makes up his loyal audience. \nSo I waited and waited and finally, there it was -- an update of the "Talking Points" videos in the Fox Web site's Opinion section. I eagerly clicked play and sat on the edge of my seat until ... until I realized that he didn't seem the least bit defeated or dismayed, and he wasn't even very funny. I decided to listen to the rest of it anyway. After throwing around all the expected topics -- Donald Rumsfeld, no visible progress in Iraq -- he said something I never saw coming, something so terribly unexpected I jumped up to replay the track. Bill O'Reilly said something that I agreed with. After looking out my window to confirm that the world had not actually ended, I played the video several times more.\nDirectly after O'Reilly accused the Democrats of "seeking to create a scandal" in the ways they might use their congressional majority to investigate the Bush administration, he actually made a valid point by explaining that these partisan inquiries could "backfire on the Democrats." Unfortunately when it comes to those four words, I completely agree with him. The Democrats, who cannot afford to follow O'Reilly's example by completely shutting out any opposing view points, must be ready to compromise. If the Democrats have established anything of their party identity, the one unifying intent seems to be their call for a change, and with this change must come a shift in the congressional partisan attitude. The Democrats are being given a chance to prove they can run a Congress that works and, unlike O'Reilly, cannot afford to squander their position by blaming the other side -- and that includes probing into the Bush administration.
(11/15/06 4:58am)
[ THE FACTS ] On Nov. 7, the American people elected the Democratic Party into control of both the House and Senate. According to the party's Web site, the Democrats are committed to "lead the world by telling the truth to our troops, our citizens and our allies."" What effect will the newly Democratic Congress have on U.S. security policy?
(11/03/06 4:11am)
As an absolute admirer of House Minority Party Leader Nancy Pelosi, whose political reputation has been defined by her determination to climb the ranks of her party through any possible means and by her unwillingness to compromise, I have one thing on my mind as the midterm elections approach. \nIf the Democratic Party is able to take 15 or more Republican seats, as most analysts claim they can, Pelosi will replace the scandal-strained Dennis Hastert as Speaker of the House. As the first woman to lead a major political party in either house, Pelosi has been carrying on her family's tradition of "fierce partisanship" since 1987 as the representative for California's 8th District. \nDeemed too liberal, too elitist and relentless by critics, Pelosi is a favorite target for conservative name-calling and has endured numerous Republican attempts to paint her as the face of liberal extremism. According to the New York Times, some Republican strategists are attempting to peg Pelosi as the "personification of liberal lunacy, an Armani-clad elitist who will help push lawmakers toward an agenda of multicultural, tax-raising appeasement." \nThe GOP's Web site has even recently run a "research briefing" attacking Pelosi, claiming she "does not understand the WOT (War on Terror)." This wave of GOP attacks against the integrity of the congresswoman seems to be one of many last-minute appeals to American voters. If the Republicans cannot convince voters to support the GOP as they head to the polls, perhaps they can attempt to persuade the public not to support the Democrats based on the future House Speaker. Resounding throughout the Republican camp seems to be the question "Is America ready for Speaker Pelosi?" Thankfully, Americans will decide, for Republicans have many reasons to fear "tough-minded tactician" Pelosi. \nShe has been hard at work in the House ushering in a new era of Democratic Party unity that is almost a replica of recent Republican Party discipline. Democrats have been united more often than they have since Eisenhower was president. According to the Washington Post, under Pelosi's leadership House Democrats have "the most unified voting record in 50 years," and though the party is not often united in voting, this year it has voted along party lines 88 percent of the time. A major improvement for this "fractious" party that has recently been plagued by serious doubts of decisiveness and strength. \nMore threatening still is how she fueled her rise to political power: massive fund-raising campaigns. According to the New York Times, "She has raised more money for Democrats in this election cycle than any other candidate except Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton -- just over $50 million." She is a serious threat to the GOP, and her position as Speaker would confirm that they are now facing a Democratic Party that is well-funded, extremely united and represents a new kind of American majority: a Democratic one. \nSo is America ready for a serious Democratic Party and, more importantly, a Madam Speaker? I say they are both long overdue.
(10/22/06 2:03pm)
After glancing over this week's headlines, I can't help but wonder if anything will be enough to keep the Republicans down as we approach the midterm elections. Republican officials are claiming to have confidence even in the wake of circumstances that should have been politically lethal for our nation's majority party. \nIn spite of early attempts to distract the public from Iraq (which was eventually out-staged only by another issue that the GOP would rather not address ... ), the number of American troops injured this month "surged to its highest monthly level in nearly two years" (Washington Post, Oct. 8). This alone should make the Republican task of retaining the majority a difficult one. However, the negative press they've received has not been due to the war or even national security.\nOf the recent woes it seems that the most detrimental is the Mark Foley scandal -- especially when it comes to the GOP's evangelical Christian supporters. If there's one thing that would most likely cause a decrease in values-voters' turnout, a sex scandal involving a Florida congressman and a 16-year old male page seems like it would be more than enough. On top of that, there are also the mounting allegations of wrongdoing concerning how the Republican leadership handled reports of the incident, and an investigation has begun into what was actually known about Foley's conduct. "Allegations that House leaders were too passive in responding" (Washington Post, Oct. 8) to the scandal have even led some to call for House Speaker Dennis Hastert's resignation, claiming "intense partisanship repeatedly blinded him to GOP misconduct." (Washington Post, Oct. 16)\nDemocrats have been gaining momentum throughout these GOP ethical pitfalls. An early October New York Times/CBS News poll concluded that "46 percent of Democrats said they were more enthusiastic about voting this year than in previous Congressional elections, compared with 33 percent of Republicans." However, Saturday's New York Times explained how Republican strategists believe "they can compensate for any gap in enthusiasm with their legendary get-out-the-vote operation." If the GOP is actually able to retain its favor among voters who consider morals the top priority when casting a ballot, I have to applaud the loyalty of its base. Perhaps I underestimated them by assuming they'd rather stay home than be forced to support someone they felt was ethically compromised. \nIs it possible that the situation is only bleak in appearance? Though "Some Republicans on Capitol Hill are bracing for losses of 25 House seats or more," President Bush and Karl Rove remain "upbeat," with the president even planning to use the next two weeks to "reshape the national agenda" to aid Republican candidates (Washington Post, Oct. 15). Sounds like a lot of reshaping to accomplish in two weeks, but if it can be done, I'll regretfully extend my congratulations. Only a resourceful party with a resilient base could bounce back from the events of the last month. If we are in for another round of GOP congressional control, though I might be personally disgusted, I'll be politically impressed.
(10/06/06 2:22am)
I came to Bloomington with great expectations.\nFor some reason these expectations took shape under the assumption that this campus would be the exception to the "apathetic" rule prevalent in guiding our generation.\nIt is hard to say whether it was naive idealism that encouraged this vision of a campus teeming at the brim with political activism, interest and involvement, or if my expectations were a product of how I thought things should be. Either way, I've been left sorely disappointed.\nRecently, while examining the ever popular District 9 congressional race between Mike Sodrel and Baron Hill, I've found myself wondering if this really is so bad. Do we have a reason to care about this particular congressional election? Perhaps these candidates really offer nothing of interest to college students. Maybe the fault lies in their campaigning. Maybe they just aren't giving us enough attention. Or maybe they need to be striving to mobilize the student demographic in a bigger way. Let's blame the politicians for our lack of concern. It sounds easier than getting involved anyway. While these are easy conclusions to which to jump, my idealistic nature persuaded me to endure.\nIf I really want to know what these candidates offer, why don't I just ask them? So I sent Sodrel and Hill identical e-mails explaining my situation, how I've found involvement to be lacking in this race compared to student involvement in District 2, where I'm from. I asked a few basic questions. I asked them if the level of involvement at IU was thought of as pivotal to the district, what their campaigns offer to attract the vote of students and what they thought could be done to make this race more appealing.\nI can't tell you what Sodrel has to say about these queries because I was never contacted by him or a staff member (whether this is a coincidence, the fault of technology or the product of time constraints, I could not say).\nHowever, I can tell you that Melanie Morris, Baron Hill's press secretary, contacted me within hours of sending the e-mail, asking me if the next day would be fine for her to send his response. I can tell you what Hill offers to the college student. I can explain his intent to "fight to make college more affordable." I can even explain how "Mike Sodrel voted against an alternative higher education funding bill that would cut student loan interest rates and reverse cuts to student aid." I am now aware of the plans Hill has that would "encourage voter registration and participation and promote young political activism at IU." I do, after all, feel the student vote is critical especially in a district in which Sodrel claimed his 2004 victory "by less than 1500 votes" (1,365 votes to be exact). So if students are ready to get involved, I know there is at least one candidate who is looking to work for those "disappointed with our leaders in Washington," and I know another "who sides with the Administration over the people of Indiana"
(09/22/06 4:00am)
With midterm elections quickly approaching, Republicans, who desperately need to make some major gains in order to retain control of the House and Senate, handpicked the issue that would come to define this election season. With most early predictions about the outcome of the elections calling for "Democratic gains across the board," the Republicans were looking to campaign aggressively with two main approaches: the first, a well-funded, mudslinging campaign that targeted lesser-known democratic challengers and the second aimed at portraying the Democrats as soft on terrorism to the point of risking national security. \nAccording to the Washington Post, the National Republican Congressional Committee plans on spending "more than 90 percent of its $50 million-plus advertising budget on what officials described as negative ads." This strategy rests on being able to "define" the public image of lesser-known challengers "through attacks and unflattering personal revelations." It is also a tactic used primarily to distract voters from examining the qualifications and effectiveness of an incumbent's most recent term in office. \nPart two of the Republican midterm election strategy (which should have been easier than the first) has been blatantly obvious: Divert the attention of the American people toward homeland security. What Republicans needed desperately was to get a vote on record late in the term that would further establish the tough stance the GOP takes on security -- from military tribunes at Guantanamo to border security -- while simultaneously forcing Democrats to cast a vote portraying them as weak when it comes to ensuring that our country can protect itself.\nIn theory this was a perfect issue; the Democrats would surely oppose the measure that would allow detainees to be held without seeing the evidence against them and allow for trial by hearsay evidence. The Republicans were planning on anything but a knock-down, drag-out between the strongest and most influential members of their own party. Bush is essentially attempting to redefine the regulations set by the Geneva Conventions regarding the treatment of prisoners. He is basically asking the Senate's approval to use torture techniques such as water-boarding, sleep deprivation and other cruel and unusual practices. He didn't anticipate opposition within his own party. John McCain, who was tortured as a captive at the hands of the North Vietnamese, and former Secretary of State Collin Powell have both passionately opposed this, along with the proposal to allow captives to be held without presenting the evidence against them. Joined by committee Democrats, Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner and Lindsey O. Graham are both Republicans who oppose the measure.\nRightly so, the divide among the Republican Party has been hugely publicized, gracing the pages of newspapers all over the country, painting their own party as they would have liked to paint the Democrats. The issue that could have easily been the saving grace of the GOP this November has hopefully taught American voters a valuable lesson about the Republican party: If you can't even make the Democrats look bad, you have big problems.