Liberal College Kid

There was a time when people from the East Coast, especially around New York city and the surrounding area thought Giuliani could win the Presidency by drawing votes from the left. His stances on topics like a woman’s right to choose combined with the crime in New York dropping significantly made him extremely popular before 9/11. He then became one of the heroes of the tragedy despite the fact that his negligence cost the lives of many rescue workers in the cleanup effort. Oh, and he spent more time at Yankee Stadium than at ground zero in the months following the attacks. And he didn’t even participate in the 9/11 commission, instead he went around collecting huge pay checks for speaking engagements. Real patriotic there Rudy…

<! Uh, The Democrats love Ahmadinejad… Uh, I’m a terrorism expert!>

All that aside, Rudy has been on top in many of the polls for Republican presidential nominees. My only concern is that since the Presidential season kicked off he has really gone off the deep end:

“This is the world we live in. It’s not this happy, romantic-like world where we’ll negotiate with this one, or we’ll negotiate with that one and there will be no preconditions, and we’ll invite (Iranian President Mahmoud) Ahmadinejad to the White House, we’ll invite Osama (bin Laden) to the White House,” Giuliani said.

“Hillary and Obama are kind of debating whether to invite them to the inauguration or the inaugural ball,” he added.

Sorry, Rudy, but I can’t let this one slide. What is he talking about? Simply because the left doesn’t want to start another war we are now all of the sudden on the side of Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden? Of course, Giuliani’s statements also make Ahmadinejad and Bin Laden sound as though they were on the same side when any reading of Middle Eastern history would tell the reader that these two men are mortal enemies, even more so than their distaste for the US (gasp!).

But back to Obama and Hillary for a moment: both of the Democratic front runners have expressed a willingness to keep troops in Iraq, impose sanctions on Iran, and follow Bin Laden into Pakistan. To be honest, it is these positions that a lot of progressives in this country are unhappy about. But for Giuliani to make this kind of statement is just inexcusable. This is classic scare tactic, black and white thinking that the current Bush regime has let dictate all of their policy decisions, and look where its gotten us. If Giuliani is truly seeking election how can he make such statements that are blatantly inaccurate. Don’t get me wrong, I know he was speaking sarcastically (I hope at least) but so was Ann Coulter when she called Jon Edwards gay and thought it was ok. In fact, she thought she was being funny. Is that what Giuliani thinks? He’s being funny?

The year is not 2004 and the leading Democrats are just as hawkish as the leading Republicans, sadly. Not supporting the war in Iraq any longer is one thing, but Hillary especially has embraced a potential military solution to a problem in Iran that currently doesn’t exist. That’s downright Republican in my book!  And for the record, the only party that has close ties with the Bin Laden’s is the Republicans.  The Bush family, which Rudy has been such a fan of for so long and who made sure every Bin Laden got out of the country on the only flights in American skies in the days after 9/11, are far more likely to invite a Bin Laden to White House than any of the Democratic nominees.

Rudy’s 9/11 record will come back to hurt him, there’s just no credibility to virtually anything he says. You can read about his testimony regarding his unpreparedness and naivety regarding the attacks here.  Giuliani is a fraud touting credentials he doesn’t have and making himself out to be a hero at ground zero instead of a fan at a Yankees game.  I hope he’s ashamed of himself, but I’m sure he’s not.

• Leave a comment... (0)

I hear it over and over again, from political rallies to neighborhood bbq’s, “I just can’t support Hillary Clinton.”  This is customarily followed up by someone who is now instantly supporting her who makes the case for, “What’s not to like?  She was for universal health care in ‘94?”   And thus the divide is created and the several liberals convened have something to debate.  This is troubling to me, and I’m worried the Democrats aren’t worried enough about what’s happening in the party.

<! Kind of looks like a Fight Night poster!>

I want to first put in my own thoughts about Hillary.  First the positives, she has a long history of supporting progressive measures; most notably, her support for universal health care in the 90’s.  Since this time she has continued to support gay rights, a woman’s right to choose, stem cell research, combatting global warming, universal pre-K education, and a whole host of other domestic issues close to the hearts of Democrats.  In short, there is a reason she has been elected as Senator from New York twice, and it’s not just on name recognition.  I have jokingly said of Hillary that while she may not have the right stance now, once the majority of the party views things a certain way she will adapt her position to reflect that of the party.  The more I think about this statement, however, the more I think I’m being absolutly serious.

Hillary’s support for the war is one that is personally troubling for me.  That said, I honestly feel as though she has no choice in the matter and had to respond the way she did.  Here’s why:  Hillary is a woman playing in a man’s game.  She needs to everything in her power to not come off as weak or feminine, and there’s nothing more nurturing or motherly than not wanting Americans to die in a phony war, right?  Regardless of where she was personally on the matter, she had to vote the way she did on the war because of the political reality in this country facing women.  Namely, in order to play with the boys, Hillary had to support the boy’s war.  She is also responding to the fact that the Democrats are perceived as being more lax on terrorism than the Republicans, something I truly don’t understand.  Having a city attacked while someone was mayor does not make them an expert on terror.  Especially when more lives were lost to rescue workers working in horrendous conditions at ground zero then were lost in the actual attacks from the planes.  Oh, and the fact that Giuliani spent more time at Yankee stadium in September 2001 after 9/11 then he did at ground zero.  I’ll buy that he’s a Yankee expert, no question.

However,  the media and it’s right wing message paint Giuliani, Bush, and the Republican idiots running this country as if they were the foremost experts on terror.  Even though the average 20 year old history major could tell you more about the Middle East than the Decider could, this is the reality we live in.  Because of this, Hillary must come out as strong against terror to the point that she’s a downright hawk! As unfortunate as this is, it truly may be what is best for her campaign, only time will tell.

Many Democrats also feel as though the race is over, that Hillary is already going to get the nomination and that the other candidates are just wasting their time.  This brings me to my only fear about a Hillary canidacy: she’s worth voting against.  The religious right in this country, especially the evangelicals don’t have a clear candidate.  To be frank, no one on the Republican side comes close to the crazy required of him to get real support from evangelical voters.  You have to say stuff like, “God wants me to be President.”  However, if there’s one thing the religious right hates more than Roe v Wade its the Clinton’s and their adulterous liberal ways.  All jokes aside, I do think the Republicans could mobilize to the point that they aren’t voting for someone, as much as they are voting against Hillary.  In this regard, I think she’s the only candidate for the Dems that this is the case.  Is this enough to not give her the nomination?  I don’t know.

We often forget just how progressive Hillary is, because she tries not to show it.  She also comes off as not having a guiding philosophy.  By this I mean something like Hope from Barack Obama, Peace from Dennis Kucinich, the transformative power of the American Dream from Edwards.  However, I will make the case that Hillary does have a guiding philosophy that she can’t talk about because of the political consequences.  That philosophy is this:  what should she do as a woman?  Hillary has taken a progressive stance on nearly every social issue, why?  Because she has a deep ceded belief in human rights, civil rights, and the ability for government to make the lives of the people it represents better.  She is a politician to her core, but I do see a universal theme to her, something I didn’t see from Kerry in 2004 and something Gore kept hidden (Global Warming) in 2000.  There’s more to Hillary than many of us think, and more toughness than I think any of us will ever know.  And so my fellow liberal America bashers (wink at Bill O), take a long hard look at the issues and then decide just how anti-Hillary you are.  I think most will find, as I have, that she may just be the right person for the job, and the time has long passed that our nation’s highest office should be run by a woman.

• Leave a comment... (2)

The article from yesterday produced such a pronounced response I thought rather than post in the comments section I would just make another post to address some of the questions posed and positions taken. I must say, however, I am continually surprised how many conservative readers we have on a site called liberalcollegekid.com. Go figure.

There were several great points made and I thank everyone who contributed. I want to first address:

What would you do if there was no federal government programs to invest in social issues ? Would you take the responsibility for your less fortunate neighbors, and family members ? Would we do a better job of working together, care for one another more, think about our communities more ? . Do you believe people are basically good, with some flaws, or are basically evil and need to be coerced into doing what is right ?

The first thing that comes to my mind when I ponder this question is Locke’s social contract theory. The idea that in order to have a functioning society we must give up some of our “natural” rights. I think this is the best way to understand why we pay taxes, it all stems back to Hobbes’ theories about how we form a society. So, no, I don’t think we would do a better job of taking care of one another if we were not compelled to; its not natural. If there were no government we would not have society, we would all exist in our own private reality devoid of meaning and community with no reason to even attempt to take care of one another since we have connection to each other.

As for human nature being good or evil, I don’t think that’s even something worth pondering. Human “nature” deals with things like eating, pro-creating, shelter, etc. I realize this is a very post-modern position but I just don’t see any point in deciding if we are innately good or bad, we’re not innately anything.

<- Future Posters for 08?->

I thought it was funny that people brought up the idea of a Kucinich/Paul ticket. I think its easy to tell from my article that I like a lot of what Dr. Paul has to say, but perhaps there can be a better comparison drawn here.  As a Democrat, I’m constantly talking to my fellow leftists about Kucinich because he is the only person in the race with a peace-loving, truly progressive platform.  I think in many ways the only real Republican in the 08 race is Ron Paul.  The Republicans have moved so far away from their base that they almost seem like a third party.  Here’s what I mean:

The whole idea of being “conservative” is being resistant to change, wanting to keep things the same or return to the way they were.  So less government spending, programs, involvement abroad, participation in international organizations, interfering with people’s health and life decisions, taking rights from the states etc. would all then not be conservative  The whole concept of a “hands-off” or laissez-fare government is exactly what the Republicans once preached.  Let’s look at the Bush administration though: We’ve got troops all over the world, trying to build nations, we’re involved in all kinds of international trade organizations, he wants to restrict what a woman can do with her body, he’s imposed education legislation that has given the federal government a choke hold on what state’s can do with their own money in their schools…  All of this while spending more than any President ever has in history, combined.  What’s conservative about spending us into the ground so that we need a hostile Chinese government to bail us out?

Ron Paul is different, the real conservative stance should be anti-war and anti-government influence in people’s lives.  The real split in the parties can be best understood by examining the two best representatives: Kucinich and Paul.  Kucinich wants to use the federal government to make life better for every American, Paul wants the government to stay out of the lives of every American.  That’s really the only difference, so why aren’t we seeing news story after news story discussing the Kucinich vs. Paul debates?

I have an answer to this question, and its an uncomfortable one:  Americans no longer care about real issues.  We have a political system in which a person’s opinion on homosexuals is enough to make them register with a particular party.  And if that issue doesn’t get someone into a camp, ask them about abortion.  These are not political questions, they’re personal quetions that should have nothing to do with even local government, let alone the federal government.  Kucinich and Paul talk about real change and real issues.  I just wish the rest of the candidates, on both sides of the aisle, would start doing the same.

• Leave a comment... (7)

We’ve all seen the signs at this point… At least in the western half of this country. “Ron Paul Revolution!” The signs look more like some kind of underground punk band and not an advertisement for a Texan in a suit. Then again, the Ron Paul campaign is not involved in the “revolution” movement. Here is the sign, if you’ve not seen one yet:

Some on the left have applauded Ron Paul for some of his positions. I would like to echo these statements and add that the Democrats should be brave enough to stand up and say some of the things Dr. Paul has said. Here are some examples of what I’m talking about.

Ron Paul wants to get the US military out of Iraq, but he also wants to get the US military out of every foreign nation. I couldn’t agree with him more. We are wasting money keeping troops in Korea for 50 years, keeping troops in Europe for 60. Troops in those countries are not protecting our national security. And we do not have a mandate that says we must police the world. If anything the radical groups of the Middle East’s message has been clear: get out of the Middle East and Palestine. Rather than accept this we go on with the rhetoric of “they hate us for our freedom.” (Giuliani et al) What nonsense! It’s refreshing to hear anyone, let alone a Republican stand up and say we need our troops out of these countries.

Dr. Paul is also right when he says that the over-spending must stop. The idea that we are relying on China to finance a failed war that the majority of Americans do not support is frightening. How can that even be happening? The truth of the matter, as Paul would agree, is that this Republican administration has over spent in record amounts and have run the national deficit into the trillions. These are the people that are “financially conservative?” Please, Paul’s suggestion for spending is to return to the Clinton era.  Ironic no?

Paul loses me on a critical issue, however, and that is his idea of abolishing income tax and with it 1/3 of the government’s budget. While I detest the way this government spends money abroad, both Democrats and Republicans are guilty here, I can’t let the government’s funding wane. Rather, I want a government that is investing in the lives of the people it represents, rather than monetary interests from big party donors abroad. Rather than abolishing taxes we should be reinvesting. We are already paying enough money to pay for everyone in this country to have universal health care, free college educations, free pre-K programs, social security that provides for people to live above the poverty line, the list could go on.  We’re simply spending the money on failed efforts at Americanizing the world.

Ron Paul has some great ideas, and his forthrightness is refreshing. Perhaps the best compliment I can give him, though, is that I can actually fathom how a Republican could support Ron Paul. His thinking makes sense, he’s consistent, he actually has a plan to do something in this country domestically unlike the rest of his field who either want to make abortion illegal or continuing a failing war for the rest of our lives. So, my Republican friends, I applaud your support for Dr. Paul, and if you really like his ideas I recommend you take a look at http://www.dennis4president.com/. Kucinich has all the same stances on foreign policy issues and yet also wants to make life better for every American at home rather than asking Americans to put out their own fires, build their own roads and bridges, and home school their children.  Yes I know this isn’t part of Paul’s campaign speeches but these are the things that taxes fund.

Does this make me part of the Revolution?  I hope not, I think.

• Leave a comment... (23)

I must preface my thoughts to say that I feel the utmost compassion for the residents of California impacted by this natural disaster. My comments to follow are not intended to make light of the tragic loss my fellow citizens are experiencing at this moment. With that said, I am increasingly irritated with the news coverage of the California fires. Nearly every news report on the topic, whether local, national, cable or print is comparing this natural disaster to Katrina, particularly using it as a benchmark for judging the Bush administration. So far, these reports suggest he is doing a ‘good job’ of not repeating history and that he’s ‘learned his lesson.’ Hmmm….really? Can we even compare New Orleans to California? Aside from the travesty of thousands of families’ lives devastated by natural disaster, I think not.

Let’s consider the “demographics” of the residents impacted by these disaster; this is the comparisons provided by the New York Times:

How can we really compare Bush’s response to Katrina and the

California fires and concluded that he learned his lesson?I would say that Bush’s responses to the California wildfires are not at all a sufficient benchmark for knowing if he really learned his lesson of Katrina…that as president, your responsibility is to serve ALL citizens of this nation, not just the rich white ones.

• Leave a comment... (0)

President George W. Bush today in his press conference said,

“Congress has work to do on health care. Tomorrow Congress will hold a vote attempting to override my veto of the S-CHIP bill. It’s unlikely that that override vote will succeed, which Congress knew when they sent me the bill.”

The Decider speaks truth!

Hang on, they shouldn’t have sent him the bill because they knew the decider would reject it? That’s not the way legislation works. There’s no requirement that the President must be ok with any legislation that comes to his desk. Of course it is his constitutional right to veto legislation, but the idea that congress should stop making legislation based on the will of the people they represent because the President disagrees is laughable.

This President has such a narrow view of what our government should look like that he can’t accept the fact that congress, for the most part, is now speaking for the American people while he is not. George W. Bush is out of touch with the American people, my fear however, is that congress is as well. The President requested legislation for funding of the federal government, renewing No Child Left Behind, to rework the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act legislation so that his fascist tendencies can continue to be realized, and to update veteran’s affairs. Of course all of this must be read as, “Do what I ask you to, how I ask you to do it or I’m not signing anything.”

But back to the out of touch comment. The President said something that is actually a very poignant and accurate critique of congress. He said,

“With all these pressing responsibilities, one thing Congress should not be doing is sorting out the historical record of the Ottoman Empire. The resolution on the mass killings of Armenians beginning in 1915 is counterproductive….Congress has more important work to do than antagonizing a democratic ally in the Muslim world, especially one that is providing vital support for our military every day.”

I couldn’t agree more Mr. President. It is not worth the American people’s time for congress to be debating a genocide (or just a horrific mass murdering?) when we have a failing healthcare system and a failed war on our hands. We need to be representing people in this country through legislation, not deciding what the official stance is of the US government of an atrocity that happened nearly 100 years ago. I’m sorry, but there is far more relevant conversations that need to be happening in our nation’s capital. And on this point, George W. Bush is right.

• Leave a comment... (2)

Hello everyone, I am sorry for my absense from the blogosphere and my site’s absense as well.  For those people who have continued reading or checking out the site I can’t thank you enough and I would like you to know that you are the reason that I am back at it blogging again.

The original vision for this site was that it would be a group of college students from all over writing about the events of the day from our perspective.  A perspective, in my opinion, that is lacking in the mainstream media.  Obviously this perspective would be liberal in nature and hopefully the readership would grow among people our age as well.  This, however, did not happen. 

What did happen is that myself and a few others wrote regularly to a hostile, conservative, and older audience.  This resulted in the numerous comments about “once you get to the real world you’ll understand,” and other such ridiculous comments that demeaned myself, my writers and our intentions.  At one point I decided I was fed up, and around that same time my good friend Jake Barnes stopped writing as well.  It seemed as good a time as any to put to rest the project of liberalcollegekid.com.

Of course, the site remained my homepage and I checked the page views regularly.  I was surprised to see that there were still a lot of people visiting everyday.  In some cases there were even more visitors than when we had new posts every day.  This has to mean something, and I don’t think its simply advertisers or people trying to leave us spam comments, because frankly since August we’ve received only four.  Instead, there were people who were reading the articles, some commenting on older material and others just reading.  This is what has brought me back to the blog.  Those readers, and starting today we will begin having daily postings from liberalcollegekid.com.  Thank you for your patience and continued support. 

And for all of you older neo-con, intollerant, Republicans out there… Liberal College Kid is back, and I’m not playing nice this time.

 Yours,

liberalcollegekid

• Leave a comment... (1)