If anyone is interested in a more real debate on issues then what has been going on in the recent comments, there is an event going on tonight I heard about from Igor. It is being up on by the ASUC External Affairs Office.

Tonight in 87 Evans from 6-7:30pm there will be a debate on Propositions 98 and 99, which are on the June 3 ballot. There will be speakers from the Berkeley Property Owners’ Association and the Rent Stabilization Board. I have also heard there will be free snacks from Chipotle.

In case anyone is wondering, in May’s Patriot, which will be out tomorrow, Rohit has an article saying YES on 98 and NO on 99.

College Republicans in California are in a unique position to deliver a meaningful blow to special interests and hypocrites everywhere by praising Governor Schwarzenegger for his fiscal responsibility, even though his intended actions come at our own personal cost. The governor’s proposed budget for 2008-2009 includes an across-the-board 10% cut in spending. This would naturally include a roughly $1 billion cut to higher education.

Students who marched on Sacramento yesterday demanded that higher education be given special treatment over all other state expenditures. I would like to ask protesting students from where they think the extra funds should be extracted. Should the money come from a reduction in the quality or number of teachers for primary education? Perhaps we could stop paying our social workers, or rescind programs aimed at protecting the environment. The causes behind these expenditures have their own special interest groups that will be feeling just as disenfranchised as students once the cuts take effect. To serve all of the special interests would require spending money that simply does not exist unless we want to leave massive debt for future generations of Californians.

As a college student, I regret the real effects that budget-cuts to this University will have on me and my peers. Still, I recognize that subsidized education is a privilege and not a right; it is only available to me at the cost of others. I urge all campus Republicans, along with any other champions of reason, to remind other students that these cuts are the result of fiscal responsibility, not a de-emphasis of the importance of higher education.

As anyone who has had any contact with the outside world should know, today is Super Tuesday. I am watching the returns come in with my roommates.

On campus today, Obama stuff and people were everywhere. There was chalking on the sidewalks, people with stickers and tables set up. I would have snapped a picture of people holding signs at Telegraph and Bancroft, but my camera keeps saying lens error 12, 14, or 22.

Beetle offers some more on campus reporting.

As you go to the polls today, I have a few suggestions.

Propositions:
92: NO
Jaymes P. Dunsmore has an article explaining why.

93: NO
This is a power ploy by current leaders; it has nothing to do with increasing experience. See my Patriot article against it.

94-97: YES
This will provide extra money for the state. The Patriot’s resident expert on California politics Rohit Joy makes the case for Yes votes.

Presidential Primary: Romney
I am joined by all of my apartmentmates in this decision.

On the Democratic side, all the cool kids I have talked to are voting Obama. However, I think they made a mistake earlier.

Later on I will talk about Time and how it is covered.

Last night was the affirmative action debate. BAMN, By any means necessary, brought their national spokesperson Shanta Driver while the Berkeley College Republicans brought Star Parker.

I think almost everyone walked into the room with a solid position on affirmative action. Most people went to cheer on their own side. During the evening, the talk moved away from the policy of affirmative action and its merits.

When Ms. Parker said, capitalism leads to wealth and redistribution leads to poverty, Ms. Driver laughed. Then I remembered the connections between BAMN and the communist group the Revolutionary Workers’ League. Check out this and its many links.

Ms. Driver put words into Ms. Parker’s mouth, claiming she thought black people were biologically inferior. Ms. Parker was called a “self-hating minority,” which later prompted a question from the audience (toward Ms. Driver) “How can I be a self-loving minority?”

During the question period, BAMN’s hearings on hostile climate toward minority students were brought up as evidence that racism still exists in a large way on the Berkeley campus. To me this was laughable. I went to one of their hearings on hostile climate. Two people I knew gave testimony about the discrimination they received. They were called “the puppet of the white man” and an “Aunt Jemima.” However, BAMN turned their cameras off, struck their testimony from the record, and laughed at them when they learned they were politically conservative.

Some of the people for affirmative action are willing to use children to advance their cause. During the question and answer period, a little kid got up to ask a question. The question he asked was not one he came up with himself, it had been written down for him to ask. The kid even had to ask the person next to him what one of the words was.

Does anyone have a favorite quote or point to share?

Ignacio De la Fuente has reaffirmed Oakland as a “city of refuge”, meaning they accept and welcome illegal immigrants and will “discourage” federal immigration raids. Law-breaking? check. Obstructing the government’s job? check. Stupid economic move? Check. Here’s what I mean.

First, it’s illegal. The immigrants are here illegally or have stayed longer than legally allowed, and the companies that hire them (occasionally) get punished, meaning it’s not ok to hire them. (Caveat: companies that hire illegals need to be punished much more severely and consistently or else no message is sent and bad behavior is condoned. Fines won’t hurt big companies too much, but enough to actually get them to comply). So it seems to me that all the folks who support this are accessories to a crime, or crimes. You can spin it however you want, but it is STILL ILLEGAL. Yes, they are people, yes they are looking for a better life, yes we need to change the system, but it’s still illegal.

Also, preventing (although the media uses the much more vague term “discourage” or “not co-operate) the federal agents from conducting raids is an obstruction of justice. If you are preventing justice from being served by refusing to co-operate with those searching for illegals, it is no different than destroying or withholding evidence in a murder case. How can these things be different? They aren’t. The difference is that these leftist areas don’t like to obey laws that don’t suit them.

I will of course recognize the economic benefit of those who will work for less than native born Americans. (Although I also take issue with it, see the Swift meat-packing plant example in Chicago, can’t find the link at the moment, but the story went: after the raid, there were lines around the block of the area’s low income blacks and whites looking for jobs that supposedly Americans “won’t do”). So, we gain cheap labor, but we also gain higher health care costs from emergency room visits, etc.

How will this affect Oakland? And how will it affect Berkeley, considering the proximity?

My friend Andrew inspired this post. It started earlier this week from the Berkeley Newscenter:

Global energy firm BP announced today (Thursday, Feb. 1) that it has selected the University of California, Berkeley, in partnership with Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBNL) and the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, to lead an unprecedented $500 million research effort to develop new sources of energy and reduce the impact of energy consumption on the environment.

A private company is giving money for research because the company will benefit from it. They are doing this for their own self interest and were not forced by any governmental agency to spend this money.

I remember when bond measures like Proposition 71 which allowed $3 billion in bonds (which will cost $6 billion by the time they are paid off) to publicly fund research came up. There was a cry that if the state did not sell bonds research into new fields would be too slow or go to other places. The private sector, especially medical science and oil, is awash with money. The government does not need to take out huge loans; private companies will give money to research.

The next time a bond measure or government expenditure comes up for debate; ask “Is this effort already underway with private funds? Can this be done without the taxpayer’s dime?” If it is clearly in the interest of one of the hundreds of companies out there the answer is probably yes.

Drudge’s headline says it all: “Yale A Cappella Group Beaten after Singing ‘Star-Spangled Banner’ in San Francisco…”.

The 16 singers showed up late to the party wearing preppy sport jackets and ties, and launched into “The Star-Spangled Banner.”

A couple of uninvited guests started mocking them, and allegedly the words “faggot” and “homo” were tossed — and so were a couple of punches.

Wow, apparently SF is not only anti-American but also anti-gay as well. Who knew?

Statewide
Arnold Schwarzenegger easily defeated Phil Angelides. I was hoping his coattails could help McClintock or Strickland get it but that did not happen. Steve Poizner was elected Insurance Commissioner but a candidate would have to be pretty bad to lose to Cruz Bustamante.

Bruce McPherson, the only other Republican incumbent lost. I am relatively happy with that, especially after I saw him speak in Political Science 179 last semester. Among my problems with him is his support for in state tuition for illegal immigrants.

I wish a few of the bond measures would have gone down, but that was not the case. I am happy the cigarette and oil taxes went down. Prop 85 lost by a larger margin then last year’s 73.

The National Scene
Republicans did a lot of things to merit losing. Outrageous spending, increasing government programs, and lack of Social Security reform are a few of the culprits. The situation in Iraq swayed a few voters. The scandals including Jack Abramoff and Mark Foley did not help. The cover up by leaders in the house did not bolster confidence either.

I would not call the election results a realignment of politics, as much as the rejection of the current elected officials’ group performance. A lot of moderates picked up seats.

Six years ago I was excited. Republicans had control of both Houses and the Presidentancy. In ‘02 and ’04 they went against the tide and picked up even more seats. Along the way they lost the Republican values that were swept into office so dramatically in ’94. I want a new Contract with America for 2008.

I don’t think Democratic control of the Congress will mean a significant new policy direction. I did not hear a unified plan before the election. They will be contending with an opposing President and his veto. Also both sides will be preoccupied with the ’08 election. The Democrats will look for every possible way to build on their momentum and the Republicans will be looking for a President since no Vice President is waiting in the wings.

What are your complaints about the past and hopes for the future? What do you think the Democrats will get done with Speaker Pelosi and majority leader Reid?

Feel free to share your ballot picks in the comments. My choices:

Governor: Art Olivier (L) - I can’t bring myself to vote for Arnold. He’s such a disappointment.

Lt. Governor: Tom McClintock (R) - I voted for him during the 2003 Recall; my first vote ever, and I don’t regret it. I’ll gladly vote for him again, since he represents a good direction (though not completely libertarian) for the Republicans to take. Since Arnold is certain to win, hopefully McClintock can help push him the right way.

Secretary of State: Gail K. Lightfoot (L) - We don’t need either party in this post, we need election reform.

Controller: Tony Strickland (R) - I’ve always heard his name in a positive, fiscally conservative context. Hopefully I won’t regret my vote.

Treasurer: Marian V Smithson (L) - Never heard of the Republican in this race.

Attorney General: Kenneth A. Weissman (L) - I just don’t agree with either of the major party candidates on the issues that this position will face.

Insurance Commissioner: Dale F. Ogden (L) - Poizner always seemed to moderate to me.

Senate: Michael S. Metti (L) - I knew I would be voting Libertarian for this position ever since the Republican primary gave me no options other than Dick Mountjoy.

House: James Eyer (L) - Here’s our interview with him.

Prop 1A: YES - Anything to limit what government can do.

Prop 1B-1E: NO

Prop 83: NO - Avoid the slippery slope, lest we become like “Big Brother” Britain.

Prop 84: NO

Prop 85: YES - No matter how you vote on this, you’re most likely a hypocrite when it comes to what kids should or should not be able to do. I’ll vote for what seems like common sense.

Prop 86: NO - Oppose the War on Drugs, in all forms.

Prop 87: NO - Don’t interfere with the free market.

Prop 88: NO

Prop 89: NO

Prop 90: YES - Our giant middle finger to the government.

I don’t know if I’ll be marking any of the local positions or measures. Let me know if there are people or measures that I really need to support or oppose.

This past week, we have been spotlighting the candidates running to represent Berkeley, along with other parts of the East Bay, in Congress. Republican John Den Dulk and Libertarian Jim Eyer kindly took time out of their busy schedules to share a few words with our readers. Surely, the incumbent Barbara Lee (or an aide) could spare a few minutes and engage her constituents…

Attempt 1, emailing the address listed on her campaign site:

From: mailer-DAEMON@leeforcongress.org
To: rodriguez@californiapatriot.org
Subject: failure notice
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:38:29 -0400

Sorry, unable to deliver your message to campaign@leeforcongress.org for the following reason:

552 Quota violation for campaign@leeforcongress.org

Attempt 2, trying the only other email address I could find:

From: imaca09reply@mail.house.gov
To: rodriguez@californiapatriot.org
Subject: Thanks for writing
Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 20:20:31 -0400

Thank you for contacting my office. This is an automatic reply to the message you sent to our office.

Rest assured that your email will be given serious consideration. Please accept this correspondence as an acknowledgement that my office has received your communication, and that my staff will thoroughly review its content, and respond accordingly with more information.

Attempt 3, seeing if her campaign inbox has been cleared:

From: MAILER-DAEMON@leeforcongress.org
To: rodriguez@californiapatriot.org
Subject: failure notice
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 19:07:37 -0500

Sorry, unable to deliver your message to campaign@leeforcongress.org for the following reason:

552 Quota violation for campaign@leeforcongress.org

Apparently, the congresswoman’s campaign team doesn’t care if their email inbox is full. Interested in asking your congresswoman a question? Too bad, your email bounces back. One would think that keeping an open line of communication would be a top priority, especially during an election. But why bother when you’re already guaranteed to win? We’re just wasting her time. Who cares what we think?

And thus, your incumbent has passed up an opportunity to reach out to a new generation of voters. Voters who are now seeing first hand, the arrogance of incumbency, regardless of party.

Enjoy your victory Barbara Lee. Not that you needed us, or anyone else, for that matter, as your non-campaign so clearly demonstrates. Enjoy your years to come as a member of one of the world’s most exclusive clubs. You represent them, and not the people. You may or may not speak for us, but you obviously could care less about speaking to us. Why bother? You’re a career politician, Barbara. And you’re set.

Yesterday, we spotlighted John Den Dulk, the Republican candidate for the 9th Congressional District. Today, let’s see what Libertarian candidate Jim Eyer had to say:

Describe your core values in 3 sentences or less.

I reject the use of force for political or social purposes.

The common goal: a society of freedom, peace, prosperity, pursuit of happiness, equal treatment under the law, accountability for harm done, and respect for privacy.

Goodness is voluntary, morality is personal, and laws cannot change human nature.

Why would you make a better representative for the 9th district than Barbara Lee?

A. I have a solid and varied professional background including technical, marketing and management along with college degrees in physics and management.

B. For any new law or program I would emphasize the need to define success, specify when success will occur, and to characterize expected benefits, all costs, and possible unintended consequences.

C. I am not beholden to any special interests.

D. I will be everybody’s representative, not one for liberals or one for conservatives.

What do you have to offer to conservative and libertarian voters who are growing tired of the administration’s abuses of power?

I want to refocus our federal government on its core mission:: (1) preserve personal and economic liberty, (2) protect citizens against foreign enemies and from criminals, (3) hold people who cause harm accountable, (4) make judgment calls when peoples’ liberties conflict, and (5) preserve general order.

Finally, is there anything that you’d like to say to the young voters, especially college students, who are reading this?

One of my key messages to younger voters is that I want to reverse the growth of our government that is already too big and getting bigger. For one government is deciding more and more about your personal matters. Second, the spending means that when you are in the prime of your career 35% of your income will be needed just to pay for Social Security and Medicare. I’ll do whatever I can to reduce the 60 trillion in debt and unfunded obligations that our federal government has taken on and that you WILL pay for.

Tomorrow, the incumbent.

There are three candidates vying to represent California’s 9th Congressional District, the district that Berkeley is located in: incumbent Democrat Barbara Lee, Republican John Den Dulk, and Libertarian Jim Eyer. Since this district contains many college students, and many of these students are registered to vote locally, I thought it would be mutually beneficial to expose the candidates to you students and vice versa. I sent each candidate a short list of questions and I will be posting their responses each day this week.

Let’s begin with John Den Dulk, the Republican candidate:

Describe your core values in 3 sentences or less.

I believe that America is a force for good in the world, traditional values best shape the lives of our children and our own paths, and that we must pay more attention to the victims of crime and less to the concerns of criminals or terrorists, for that matter. I feel that the Left of the Democrat Party does not agree with these three ideals.

Why would you make a better representative for the 9th district than Barbara Lee?

I represent the Republicans and the traditional JFK Democrats better than she does. JFK lowered taxes and had a strong foreign policy. She speaks for the Radicals in Berkeley, not the Baptists in Oakland.

What do you have to offer to conservative and libertarian voters who are growing tired of the administration’s abuses of power?

The problem has more been individual congressmen, including those in positions of power, who have not lived up to Republican ideals the last few years. I do not agree that vigorously pursuing terrorists from foreign countries constitutes abuse of American citizens, as this question seems to imply.

Finally, is there anything that you’d like to say to the young voters, especially college students, who are reading this?

Get involved and stay involved! The BCRs are the best thing going on campus today.

A separate interview with Mr. Den Dulk can be found in the upcoming election issue of the Patriot. Jim Eyer’s responses coming tomorrow.

Yesterday Phil Angelides had a phone banking event in San Francisco. A number of his supporters made phone calls for him and a few were even in front of the building chanting and waving signs. In the spirit of political debate, some supporters of Arnold Schwarzenegger including me showed up to wave signs as well.

The Angelides supporters did not play nice. One of them called us Nazis and another stole a stack of Schwarzenegger signs from me and ran off with them. They chanted how much they hated Arnold and stole a Golden Bear chant to say this was union territory. We responded with “No new taxes” and “Scoreboard.”

They tried to intimidate us. The Angelides supporters even dropped water on us from the windows of their building and broke a megaphone of Arnold’s supporters. When the police came to interview people about the damaged megaphone, the person they were looking for had conveniently left the building.

For a minute Angelides himself appeared to encourage his supporters. Mayor Gavin Newsom also showed up to rally the Democratic faithful.

The one thing I did not expect was the lack of manors of Angelides’s supporters. I can understand rowdy and childish behavior from college students, but these were grown mature looking adults.

Keep Fighting
While the certainty of Arnold’s victory is growing every day, we cannot stop now. It is still a close race for many of the down ticket candidates. There are great conservatives including Tom McClintock and Tony Strickland who need those last few points to win. Arnold’s coattails can help, but we need every vote we can get. The campaign structure for Victory 06 is immense and is still in need of volunteers for the last hours of the campaign. On the national level Republicans might falter, but we can make California a big victory.