New York Times Rejects McCain Iraq Essay

The New York Times, who many believe to be a liberal newspaper, has recently rejected an essay that Senator John McCain wrote defending his Iraq War policy. The piece, a lengthy critique of Obama's positions in Iraq, most notably his 16 month timetable, as well as an outlining of his own plans for the future of Iraq, was in response to an Op-Ed article from Barack Obama that was published in the newspaper last week. 

But before the right-wing media starts their inevitable criticism of the "biased, unfair" left-wing newspaper, let us first look at why the article was rejected. In a statement released today, The New York Times said that it is "standard procedure on our Op-Ed page, and that of other newspapers, to go back and forth with an author on his or her submission." So, before we jump to a falsified conclusion, it simply appears that Senator McCain's article was not rejected, merely handed back for another revision. This assumption is confirmed by the New York Times, who stated, "We look forward to publishing Senator McCain's views in our paper just as we have in the past."

My question is, at what point is the New York Times crossing the line of mere publishing and unjustly stepping into the realm of assisting these two candidates in taking public potshots at each other? Senator Obama's July 14th essay had taken shots at McCain for not further encouraging the Iraqi government to take control of their own country. Now, just a week later, McCain has attempted to retaliate with his own Op-Ed piece bluntly criticizing Obama, saying, "[He] seems to have learned nothing from recent history." I ask again. Is The New York Times encouraging this public squabble between candidates? Food for thought. But I digress.

Ultimately, only time will tell if The New York Times will publish Senator McCain's Op-Ed piece. In my opinion, it is only fair. I may not agree with the Senator on the issues, and I most certainly do not in most cases, but if the newspaper allows for Senator Obama to write a piece that is critical of Senator McCain's policies as well as his handling of key issues that are essential to victory in the November Presidential Elections, it is only right that Senator McCain has a chance to refute the points that Senator Obama presented.

I like to call that the Straight Talk Express. 

The Passing of Tony Snow

Former White House press secretary Tony Snow passed away early this morning at the young age of 53. Snow, who had been undergoing chemotherapy for a recurrence of colon cancer, left his job at the White House on September 14, 2007. 

Snow was best known for cheerfully sparring with reporters in the White House briefing room in his short year and a half stint as President Bush's press secretary. He explained how his previous job as the host of the television news program "Fox News Sunday" between 1996 and 2003 mentally prepared him for the pressure that he had to face in the press room. 

Speaking about one of the toughest jobs in the world, Snow would later say that in the Bush administration he was enjoying "the most exciting, intellectually aerobic job I'm ever going to have."

Red and Blue's thoughts are with Tony Snow's wife Jill and their three young children.

Question of the Day: What's More Important?

There has been a firestorm over the last couple days over Barack Obama's choice to vote for a bill in Congress. The bill will give communications companies that complied with President Bush's request to illegally wiretap terror suspects immunity from lawsuit. It is an update of FISA, the federal surveillance bill that has caused all the controversy dealing with Bush's wiretapping following the 9/11 attacks in order to keep track of terror suspects within the United States.

Liberals within Congress and within public in general have accosted Obama for what they see as a "sellout" of his values. They accuse him of being compliant with what they see as illegal activities by Bush. They claim that the United States citizen's rights to be free and clear from federal surveillance is more important than providing better security.

The flip side of the argument is that with the wiretapping, the Government is able to have more intelligence on possible terror suspects and hopefully prevent another attack on the scale of 9/11 from happening. As President Bush explained, the bill

will help help us meet our most solemn responsibility: to stop another attack.

My question is, what IS the Government's most solemn responsibility? Should they be more worried about upholding the rights of the people and the Constitution or protecting the people from a possible terror attack. Should they worry more about keeping people happy or keeping people safe? Are those two ideas mutually exclusive? Do we really need to make a choice between safety and the Constitution? Has Barack Obama "sold out?"

Let me know what you think in the comments section.

Free Speech Repression or Simple Law Enforcement?

Checking out any non-mainstream media inevitably brings you to some stories about people who are being fined or intimidated for speaking their minds. I'd like to take a look at two stories that I came across, and talk about whether they are really free speech issues, or if they are just about people who broke the law and are falsely claiming that they were discriminated against for their views. The links are at the end of the article.

I'll start with the one that is a bit less controversial. A man had a sticker on his rear window that said, “No to Empire,” and was pulled over and ticketed for it. I suggest reading the article for the full story. But anyways, it was supposedly on the grounds that the sticker was obstructing his view. The Professor Ovetz, the man being fined, claims that there are tons of people with stickers from their college in the same place as his sticker, and that it did not obstruct his view. Now I know that my family has UConn stickers in the same exact place, and that it does not obstruct our view, and that we've never been fined for them. I've seen tons of people on the road with the same type of sticker. So, unless the laws in San Francisco are different than here in South Windsor (which they very well may be, I'm not being sarcastic), I think that the police officer was probably stretching the law in order to get Ovetz to take his sticker down.

The next one is more controversial, as it involves the flag. Dale Decker, of Wisconsin, flew a flag upside-down on his apartment patio. According to Decker, he talked to a police officer, who told him that he was breaking the law (without being able to say exactly which law) and should take down the flag or he would face fines or imprisonment. The police chief denies that he was threated with fines or imprisonment, and that he was merely asked to take it down due to a neighbor's complaint. Decker has also faced anger and death threats from other people in his community. The end of the story is that the apartment complex ordered all flags, even right-side up, to be taken down. Everyone, including Decker, complied with this. Now as I said, the flag is a lot touchier for people than a sticker. But it should be Decker's right to fly the flag upside-down if he so chooses. The apartment obviously wanted to get Decker's flag down to avoid conflict, but ordered all flags down in order to seem neutral. This was a good move, as it keeps them out of the ideological side of it. But they didn't order all flags down until Decker began to “disgrace” his, and the owners of the apartment complex said that they only had problems with “anyone showing disrespect.” Also, he was not breaking any law, merely a rule of the apartment. So if Decker's claim of what the police said is true, then we are looking at a case of the police using intimidation against nonviolent speech, which would be a much bigger deal. I just hope that the Decker was exaggerating, and that the police did not threaten him. This story has many more holes in it, and I'm much less sure about who was right than with Ovetz's case.

Now I'm not saying that I agree with Decker's flying the flag upside-down, or with Ovetz's sticker. I just think that they should both be allowed to express their ideas, without being singled out by police officers who twist the law to fit the situation. Also, the way that the community treated Decker was horrible. People should respond to his actions by flying their own flags right-side up, not by saying that, “If you keep up what you're doing, a vet is going to find you and put a bullet in your head.” Stifling free speech stifles independent thought, and that is what our country is supposed to protect. Feel free to comment with your own ideas about these articles, or if you find any articles addressing the same situations from different viewpoints. This country is about the free expression of ideas, I just expressed mine, now please express yours.

http://www.progressive.org/mag/mc070708.html

http://www.progressive.org/wx070408.html

The Bad News Bearers

After an arduous primary process, it appears that the Democratic vote is more split than previously thought. Despite Clinton's resignation from the campaign and her endorsement of Senator Barack Obama as the Democratic presidential nominee, it appears that 43% of Democrats still say they want Clinton as the party's nominee. Even worse, a growing number of Clinton supporters have expressed that they may stay home in November instead of casting their ballot for Barack Obama. It blows me away how anyone who proclaims themselves to be a true democrat can stay at home in such an unprecedented, significant election year. 

In addition to this, a CNN poll completed in early June showed that 60% of Clinton backers stated that they would vote for Obama in the national election. Recently, that number has dropped to 54%. What is shocking is how similar the two candidates were on the issues. Despite their constant bickering on who's healthcare plan covered more people (although both plans are eerily comparable), both candidates believed in the same essential liberal core ideas. That is what makes these recent polls that much more shocking. How can a Clinton supporter deny a fellow Democrat the White House based on his/her personal assumptions of Obama's character?

But most likely, Clinton's loss must be seen as a four step process:

1. First, there is denial. This was the most blatant of the four, with Senator Clinton proclaiming that she had won more of the popular vote than Senator Obama and her rally cry that the race would go all the way to the convention.

2. After the denial phase, Clinton supporters can expect to go through a grieving period. Seeing as recent numbers suggest Obama's poll numbers slipping amongst Clintonian Democrats, this is the phase that many are at at the present time. 

3. A short stage of depression and anger will follow. I believe that this may occur after Obama picks his running mate (who I believe will not have Clinton as their last name). If Obama were to pick Clinton, his message of change threatens to be muddled by her 16 years of hard work in Washington.

4. Finally, acceptance. After a long process of anger and grief, I believe that Clintonian Democrats will eventually succumb to Obama's wise words, hopeful message of change, and strong belief in liberal ideals. 

CNN political analyst Brian Schneider sums it up perfectly when he eloquently explains, "If he doesn't pick her [Clinton], a later stage of grief is depression and then acceptance," Schneider says. "In the end I expect Clinton supporters will accept Obama, because they will listen to Senator Clinton, who has said the stakes are too high for Democrats to sulk."

So please, if you are 18 or over, listen to Senator Clinton. This election is too important to stay home and not vote. And even if you are under 18 as I am, you can do your part by working for a candidate locally or advocating for the candidate of your choice. Either way, this election is too important to let slip away. Do your part!

Question of the Day: A Family Affair

Recently there has been a lot of attention regarding the candidates family. Media outlets have been arguing lately about whether the American public should factor in the candidates wives when they hit the polling stations in November. I've seen polls asking voters how they feel about Mrs. McCain and Obama, whether they would want to "hang out" with them, whether the people think they are "good wives" or "loyal confidants" of their husbands. Newsweek even ran a cover story on Cindy McCain a few weeks ago, with an accompanying article that examines who she is and if she's ready to be First Lady.

There has also been a lot of attention on the candidates children. Barack Obama has recently expressed regret at allowing the TV show "Access Hollywood" to interview his children. He said that he doesn't want the children to be exposed to politics or the media at so young an age, yet we now see those very same children being debated over on CNN and MSNBC.

So my question is, where do we draw the line? At what point does our vetting of the potential Presidents become too personal. Is it worth looking into their family situations when we are trying to make our choice as to who would make the best President, or is that irrelevant. Would a ditsy, ineffective first lady really be a reason to vote against a candidate that you would otherwise vote for? What role do the children play in all of this? I want to hear your opinions, leave a comment.

Connecticut Minimum Wage Increase

So, as you may or may not have heard, the Connecticut House has overridden one of Governor Rell's vetoes, regarding a law to raise the Connecticut minimum wage from $7.65 an hour to $8.00 an hour, taking effect on January 1, 2009. The vote was razor-thin, as 102-39 voted to override, and 101 were needed.

Now I'm not claiming to know much about economics. I don't know if this minimum wage increase is going to help the economy rebound by helping employees, as its proponents claim, or if it will hurt small business owners, as Rell and others claimed. I won't take sides on the economic theory side of the issue.

On the human side of the issue, I am very glad that this law was passed. From a personal perspective, of course I would be, because I'm a teenager earning less than $8.00 an hour, so this will increase my income next year. But on a grander scale, I think that this increase will help a lot of people. And no, I don't mean the teenagers working summer jobs so that they can have fun during the school year. I'm talking about the working poor of Connecticut. According to some state sites, there are about 65,000 people in Connecticut who earn less than $7.65 an hour. Adding to this the amount of people who earn less than $8.00 an hour, and will be helped by the increase, there are a substantial number of people earning minimum wage to try and make ends meet. Imagine trying to support a family, or even yourself on $7.65 an hour. We did the math in my English class last year, and even supporting yourself is difficult.

Whether or not it will help the economy as a whole, I am glad that this law was overridden by the House, as it will help a lot of individuals. However, please not that this has not yet been passed, as it still must be overridden by the Senate. But the Courant predicts that it will be, and I trust that their knowledge of our state Senators' voting tendencies is sufficient to assume that this will be passed into law.

http://www.ctemploymentlawblog.com/2008/06/articles/legislative-issues/update-conn-house-overrides-veto-in-minimum-wage/
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2008/rpt/2008-R-0285.htm

Republicans Ready To Fight

I will be the first to admit that I have been one of Senator Obama's greatest supporters throughout his entire struggle with Senator Clinton and the ongoing war of words with Senator McCain. But with that being said, I will also be the first to acknowledge that a candidate has made a mistake. Lately, it appears Obama has been waffling on core liberal issues and values. Maybe I have just been watching too much CNN, but seeing as the Senator's blog has been littered with negative commentary the past few weeks, I do not believe I am the only one who sees it.

For example, the Iraq war. One of Obama's key principles has been that if elected, he will have all American soldiers pulled out within the first 16 months of his presidency. We have heard it thousands of times. But lately, all of this has been called into question. Senator John McCain said that Obama's remarks on Iraq "have left a significant question as to exactly what he intends." But, despite the growing concerns, Obama denied any suggestion that he was shying away from his proposed 16-month phased withdrawal of all combat troops from Iraq, calling it "pure speculation" and adding that his "position has not changed."

We all know that whenever a Democratic nominee makes a seemingly innocuous comment on a key issue, the Republican hounds come out in full force. Instantly, the Republican National Committee sent out a chain email stating that Obama was attempting to back out of his own policy of withdrawing troops within 16 months. But ex-presidential nominee John Kerry, who himself know a little something about the Republican Machine (anyone remember Swiftboat?), was there to back up Senator Obama:

The Republicans, and John McCain specifically, are trying desperately to get away from the reality of John McCain's position, which is that he has a plan for staying in Iraq and Barack Obama has a plan for getting out of Iraq...[Obama's position] has not changed whatsoever in his fundamental determination to end the war.

In the end, I have come to the realization that I overreacted. At some point, Obama would have to change from the saint that he was once viewed as to a true politician, and this has been a difficult transformation for me. But even if Obama does add a few months to his 16 month withdrawal, anything is better than McCain's plan for 16 years or 16 decades or even 16 lifetimes. 

The Anticlimax

When Barack Obama became the presumptive nominee back about a month ago, you could feel the excitement in the Democratic party and its supporters. It was one hell of a race between Hillary and Barack, but it had finally come to an end. That was the starting point of the battle between John McCain and Barack Obama – a race, mind you, which was supposed to be unique.

However, sitting here about a month later, I'm wondering what's so different. Yes, Barack is black, that's definitely something incredible, but I'm talking about the issues. Taxes, the economy, war plans, haven't we already heard this before? What I'm trying to get at is so far, this race between Obama and McCain has been the ultimate anticlimax. What do you think?

Instant Runoff Voting

I'd like to take a minute to tell you all about what I think is a great idea: Instant Runoff Voting, or IRV. It's a type of electoral reform, and to sum it up, everyone ranks the candidates by their preference, instead of only voting for one. If no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated. But people who voted for them are not forgotten: whoever they ranked as their number two pick gets their vote. This continues until a candidate gets the majority.

Why do I like this idea so much? To give you a bit of background on me, I am a big fan both of electoral reform and of third parties. And using IRV for the presidential election would be a victory for both of those. The main idea is that you can vote your conscience without any fear of losing your voice. I'm constantly torn between supporting 3rd party candidates that I like a lot, such as Ralph Nader (Nader just as an example... people who know me know that I greatly prefer Kucinich), or the mainstream candidate that I like more than the other, which is Barack Obama. So if IRV were in place, I could vote for Nader, and put Obama as my number 2 pick. That way, if Nader doesn't win, then my vote will still go to a candidate that I would like to see in office.

Now, people may say that this idea is useless because third parties never win. But if this were in place, maybe third parties in the USA would become a bigger force than they are (not necessarily electing presidents, but perhaps mayors and governors). People will be empowered to vote for who they really believe in, without fear of being discounted by the broken electoral system. And I'm not saying that I think Nader, or Barr, or any non-major party candidate could win the 2008 election, even with IRV in place. But I think that they would definitely get a larger amount of votes, and that is what is important to me. People should be able to express that they like a candidate, and really believe in her or his ideas, rather than holding their nose and voting for whoever they dislike the least. It will at least let people know that there are alternatives to the Democrats and Republicans, and that there are lots of people who support them. If we had IRV, I don't think NAder would win, but I think he would have a lot more than 6% of the vote.

Some resources to learn about IRV:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting#Counting_the_votes
http://www.fairvote.org/irv/
http://instantrunoff.com/

An Unavoidable Conclusion

Recently The Supreme Court ruled in a 5-4 decision that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution protects the individual's rights to own a firearm for protection or gaming purposes. This was the first time that the court ever officially interpreted the 2nd Amendment to mean that. For years and years we have assumed that that's what it meant, and in practice, it has, but now the Court has made it official.

When this came to the Court, there was really no other decision that could have been made, despite the 4 opposing votes. If the Court had ruled that the 2nd Amendment didn't protect the right for an individual to own a gun, things would have been absolutely chaotic. Suddenly, every gun law or statute in the country comes into question. What would the government do about those who already had guns? There's the possibility that despite the Court's ruling, Congress would refuse to implement any legislation to deal with the problem, thus creating a Constitutional crisis that not even the Court could solve, since they would be part of the problem. The Court HAD to make the decision they did, if not for any other reason than to keep their position as the defining authority of the Constitution within the United States.

There will always be the question of whether this case should have come to the Supreme Court at all. The case was based on a Washington D.C. statute that banned guns within the city. Obviously when they granted the case certiorari, the Supreme Court decided that it was important enough for people to own guns that it is a constitutional issue, which in many respects, it was. The D.C. gun ban seemed to go against the 2nd Amendment, and so the Court was well within their jurisdiction to decide the case.

What I find funny is that Conservative Justices like Antonin Scalia will preach about "original intent" and strictly following the words of the Constitution, unless they are trying to protect something else that they believe in. If they were to follow strict constructionalism all the time, they wouldn't be able to strike down the D.C. gun ban, because the Constitution definitely doesn't clearly say that individuals can own guns. They also would have never intervened in 2000's Bush v. Gore case, but since it was something that they believed in, they changed their tone for that case, just as they did for this one. That's the only thing I have wrong with this decision. If the conservative wing is going to protect the original intent of the framers when making decisions, they should do it full time, not just when it's convinient for their causes.

A little consistency never killed anyone. A lack of it might kill hundreds in D.C. when guns are let into the city in upcoming months.

Alex Severin- Election 2008 and The Supreme Court

Many times during the course of the last year, I have been so caught up in the constant party bickering, the back and forth jabs, and the speculative, “Fox News Style” rumors, that I have completely disregarded what this election means for the future of the Supreme Court.

As many may know, in 2005, President Bush nominated 53-year-old John Roberts to serve as Chief Justice on the Supreme Court. On September 29, 2005, Chief Justice Roberts assumed office. While most of the justices are in there sixties, seventies, and even eighties (with the exception of Justice Samuel Alito, who was also nominated by President Bush), the President nominated a younger justice in hope that he would command a conservative court for decades to come. Quite intelligent, don’t you think?

Overall, the Conservative wing of the court is significantly more cohesive than the liberal wing. As a result, oftentimes they are able to win that crucial swing vote from Anthony Kennedy and therefore carry many 5-4 decisions. With the impending departure of some of the older Liberals, including John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the next President will be in a position to either uphold the balance of the court by appointing two liberal leaning justices, or provide for a guaranteed conservative victory on nearly every vote of political importance.

Here is a breakdown of the Justices, with their age, and the President they were appointed by.

Clarence Thomas, 60, George H.W. Bush – Thomas is a very Conservative member of the court. An article that appeared in the New York Times recently showed that Thomas and Justice Scalia, another recognized conservative, voted together 100% of the time in 2007-2008. Thomas is in favor of capital punishment, upholds free speech a majority of the time, and has an favorable view of the Bush Administration.

Antonin Scalia, 72, Ronald Reagan– The rock of the conservative base. Scalia is one of the most outspoken members the Court has seen in recent times. He is in favor of judicial restraint, and isn't afraid to make that well known, appearing on 60 Minutes this past year to defend his role in the Court. He is the justice behind the majority ruling in 2000's firestorm case Bush v. Gore, which ended up deciding the election.

Samuel Alito, 58, George W. Bush– Appointed to the Supreme Court on January 31, 2006, Alito is considered a generally conservative juror, but not to the extent of Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia. During confirmation hearings, democrats characterized Alito as a mold of Scalia, but Alito states he “would act as an impartial referee.”

John Roberts 53, George W. Bush– The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, he is also the youngest member of the court and is generally allied with the conservative wing of the court. He voted against Guantanamo detainees having the right to go to federal court to challenge their detention and upheld that the individual right to own a gun for personal use is protected by the Second Amendment, along with the entire conservative wing.

Anthony Kennedy, 71, Ronald Reagan – At a certain point, Justice Kennedy was deemed so important to the Supreme Court that the Court was called “The Kennedy Court”, and even today he plays an extremely significant role. Although known as a swing voter, he tends to lean toward the conservative side, which gives the republicans a 5-4 advantage on every ruling. He voted with the conservatives on the issues of gun right but against the conservatives when it came to the rights of Guantanamo detainees.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 75, Bill Clinton – Ginsburg is considered to be one of the most liberal members of the court, and she is also one of two (along with Justice Stevens) justices who may need to be replaced in the next eight years.

John Paul Stevens, 88, Gerald Ford – Stevens was nominated by Republican Gerald Ford and is known as the leader of the Liberal movement in the Court. Stevens generally supports students’ right to free speech in public schools, voted for the use of the death penalty in the United States (except in certain situations and when dealing with juvenile offenders). Stevens is the other Justice who will not make it through the next presidential term. I believe recently, he has just been holding on until a democrat can take office to replace him.

David Souter, 68, George H.W. Bush – Souter is one of the most interesting cases in the Court right now. He was appointed by Republican President George Bush Sr., but primarily votes in a liberal fashion, although not always. He is seen as one of the more moderate on the court.

Steven Breyer, 69, Bill Clinton – Breyer is currently known as an intellectual leader of the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and is seen as a counter to the conservative justice Antonin Scalia. In the past he has voted in favor of abortion laws. In describing his interpretive philosophy, Breyer has sometimes noted his use of six interpretive tools: text, history, tradition, precedent, the purpose of a statute, and the consequences of competing interpretations.

This election is extremely important. With the imminent departure of Justices Ginsburg and Stevens, the new President will have at least one chance to sway the court in his party's direction. All we can do is wait and speculate. Isn’t that unfortunate?

Written By Alex Severin

Daily Congressional Roundup, July 1st

H.R. 5690- To remove the African National Congress from treatment as a terrorist organization

Status: Signed into Law by President Bush

Commentary: The U.S. Government keeps a terrorist watch list that includes organizations all over the world who have caused unrest in their home countries or fought against an active government. Inexcusably, the African National Congress, which was led by Nobel Peace Prize recipient Nelson Mandela, which fought against Apartheid in South Africa during the late 80's/early 90's was included on this list. Our government was wasting resources keeping track of a nobel peace prize winner as a possible terrorist threat. This really just shows how indescriminant the war on terror has become in our country. This bill was introduced to remove all former members of the ANC from the terrorist watch list, and it was passed easily by both houses of Congress this spring and signed into law by President Bush immediately yesterday, July 1st. It's good that this finally got straightened out, but it's sad that Congress had to waste time debating this and ultimately passing it. If you ever wonder why we have gridlock in government, it's because they are wasting time fixing things that never should have happened in the first place like this.