Student Action Senator Resigns
I’m a little late on this news (Blogsome was moving servers at the time he resigned and so I couldn’t post to CalStuff for about 48 hours). The Daily Cal has an article, and the CalPatriot already posted to their blog. Melissa Jones, the BCR candidate finished 21st in last year’s elections, and presumably will become the new Senator.
You might think as Igor’s fraternity brother I might have some special insight into why he resigned. You would be wrong though, as Igor didn’t tell me, and I have no idea. Which is fine, because uninformed speculation is much more fun anyway.
The most-likely (yet completely uninteresting) speculation is that he was too busy with school and wanted to focus on his grades.
The much more interesting (but probably untrue) speculation is something involving Student Action or an ASUC scandal. Perhaps someone lied/cheated/stole from or betrayed Igor…?
I’m guessing that the ASUC crew will have some interesting things to say in comments (and maybe one of you actually knows why he quit). If Igor ever feels like telling someone why he quit, he should tell me first, and I’ll post it on CalStuff.
I’ve known Igor for a long enough time to know that something terrible must have happened to compel him to step down from his post at the ASUC. On several occasions, he told me that he was working 40 hours a week, that much of his life was consumed by the ASUC, and that he had willingly chosen to make some sacrifices in his classes in order to commit himself to his work as a senator. He also said that if it was ever necessary, he wouldn’t think twice about increasing the amount of time that he works per week in the ASUC to 60 hours.
To me, the second “probably untrue” speculation in the above entry actually seems more likely. The text of the Daily Cal hints that something drastic must have happened and that he had to choose his words carefully. The executive slating process for Student Action is just around the corner and may have already been completed.
If this is the case and Student Action didn’t select him, I can’t possibly think of a single reason as to why. It seems to me that Igor was really the glue that held the ASUC and his party together, and that he’s done an incredible amount of commendable work this year. If I was party chair and Igor had expressed his interest in running, I would have chosen him without a second thought.
If Igor was not slated for an executive position based on a superficial or frivolous reason—- and this would have to be the case since he is clearly one of the most qualified and hard-working candidates in Student Action– then I think that Igor has been heroic in how he has approached this. I too would be “visibly upset” at my farewell address to the ASUC if my reason for resigning was that my objective achievements as an ASUC senator were cast aside by Student Action during the executive slating process. If Student Action had not given me consideration for such a position due to a ridiculous or unfair reason, despite hard work and achievement as an ASUC senator, then I would also have resigned. If this is the case (which I am not stating conclusively), then the Student Action party is clearly in the wrong and Igor’s supporters should be very angry during this election cycle.
Comment by Kerry Eskenas — January 20, 2006 @ 2:48 pm
Can you spin this into a fulfilment of prediction 2?
Comment by McMike — January 20, 2006 @ 5:45 pm
I offer my condolenes to Iggy and I mean this in the most sincere way. I’ve known Iggy through campaigning and as a friend of mine who was pretty much always there for me even when I vehemently disagreed with him. Iggy is a tough man. School hardships had never stopped him from representing us as a senator and even though I always make inferences about the corruption of student government, even briefly signing on to a campaign to end the ASUC, Iggy was always the man who I would look to in order to remind myself that there were people in the ASUC who really cared about the students, above all the glitz and glamour, the suits and cheap hair gel, above the petty student issues, above “does this suit make me look professional” attitude, above all, a highly qualified man. I do not consider image to be that big of an issue when voting for a candidate (although I once DID find this the reason to support someone), but in Igor’s worst, he always stood out as a model student senator.
Iggy is a man of great integrity, trying to be a man, a student and a representative at the same time. And somehow throughout his 3 years at Cal he managed to do all 3 superbly. Even when one of those faltered, he always tried harder and devoted even more time to coming through. I believe in meritocracy, and Igor was always the best at what he did. For one of the greatest senators to step down in the middle of the year means that something got in Iggy’s way that was big enough to shatter the dreams of a man who put all of us before himself. And in Iggy’s heart, I only know of one reason that would stand in his way of doing what’s right.
Iggy was one person who really believed in delivering what the students deserved. I would often have arguments with Iggy over the validity of Student givernment, and almost every time he left me speechless. I of course am not pointing fingers at anyone, but I really do feel that schoolwork may have been only one factor that led to my senator’s resignation. I don’t know what those issues are, but whoever is responsible, know your actions have cost you the most dedicated and popular senator in the chambers.
IF (and I capitalized the “if” part) Student Action had anything to do with this, which may very well not be the case, remember that substance always goes before the perfect “image” of an executive candidate. Voters voted for Manny last year because he pushed such a uniting message that even CalSERVE supporters were holding his signs fearlessly. Iggy was one of the highest vote-getters in the last election. Why? Because his constituents and his friends knew him for who he was. Girls of all ethnicities in miniskirts may get a number of votes, but it’s not enough to pursue a message that Iggy pursued. Vote for me, I’m hot only goes so far. Iggy fought the image that he was just a nerdy engineer and campaigned for numerous communities, representing people that he disagreed with, my constituents, vehemently. Iggy left at a turbulent time in ASUC politics. Elections are around the corner, attacks of racism are hitting an RD who allegedly said racist things to an Asian RA, challenging both CalSERVE, Student Action and Independent senatorial members who have strong Asian constituents. Online voting is being used for the first time, probably one of the most breathtaking feat in ASUC history. The senate has lost a key decisionmaker in many issues following.
So Iggy, I’ve never lived a day in Foothill dorm, I’m never stepped foot in Bechtel Hall. But I know you more than any senator and I stand by your decision and caution the student body that they lost probably the most dedicated senator in the senate.
Comment by Cameron Huey — January 20, 2006 @ 10:53 pm
You know, Andy, I would’ve written that last sentence something more like: “If Igor ever feels like telling everyone why he quit, he should tell me first, and I’ll post it on CalStuff.”
Comment by Beetle — January 21, 2006 @ 5:03 pm
Any speculation on slates for the two parties?
Comment by anony — January 21, 2006 @ 9:58 pm
STUDENT ACTION
Student Action’s is obvious. If you look at patterns they always choose 3 (usually male) senators and 1 outsider who is usually a female.
Daniel Frankenstein (Senator)
Taz Patel (Senator)
Frank Lee (Senator)
Grace Chen (Outsider)
Misha Leybovich (Senator)
Rocky Gade (Senator)
Christine Lee (Senator)
Pammy O’Leary (Outsider)
Manny Buenrostro (Senator)
Jason Dixson (Senator)
Anil Daryani (Senator)
Sharon Han (Outsider)
So this year choose 3 of the senators not graduating
Plus one outsider which is always a strange surprise.
Oren Gabriel, Ki-Hong Li, Vishal Gupta, Lisa Putkey, Ernie Macias, Igor Tregub, Chris Abad, David Kim, Ed Lam.
Igor and Chris are out. This leaves:
Oren Gabriel, Ki-Hong Li, Vishal Gupta, Lisa Putkey, Ernie Macias, David Kim, Ed Lam. So 3/7 of them are going to be slated.
CalSERVE
CalServe has not chosen senators for the past few years and they’ve paid dearly for it. Expect them to learn this time, and choose at least 2.
If they have any intelligence they’re going to run Josie Alvarez for President, and Rita Encarnacion for EVP.
Bears United
Um… yeah
Comment by RepBast1984 — January 22, 2006 @ 12:17 am
fucking moron: “Online voting is being used for the first time, probably one of the most breathtaking feat in ASUC history.”
haha. it costs three times as much as paper voting. idiots. lets pay tens of thousands of extra dollars to vote on computers. fucking breathtaking.
Comment by mano — January 22, 2006 @ 11:01 am
Oh yes we LOVE mano’s intelligent comments. We should pay off the online voting tab by taking it out of the corrupt SUPERB budget. Fucking douchebags.
Another observation, Student Action always runs (at leats) one exec candidate that people consider “hot”. CalSERVE always runs less than desireable executive candidates but one or more of their senate candidates is smokin’ hot. CalSERVE always gets plenty of senate seats. Maybe they’ll actually run hot execs this year.
Comment by Anonymous — January 22, 2006 @ 1:18 pm
Mano,
The reason why online elections would be so expensive to do is because it’s essentially running 2 elections at once. Normal polling places and online voting during the phase-in year, then from thereafter just online voting, which stands to greatly cut costs starting on the second year.
Comment by Edward Martinez — January 22, 2006 @ 3:43 pm
Mano, I think what you’re talking about is “computer voting”. Yes, computer voting is more expensive than manual voting. Renting all those stupid computers and having nightmere scenarios like 2003 does seem bad. But maybe you should look at what I was talking about first instead of jumping to random conclusions.
Maybe I really shouldn’t talk about ASUC reform. Amongst the many people I’ve helped come to power, at least one person I’ve helped turned out to be a person who I feel should not have had power.
Comment by Cameron Huey — January 22, 2006 @ 8:11 pm
Speaking as the guy most responsible for the “nightmare scenario” of 2003 I can tell you that we never planned on having “computerized but not online” elections for so long. Hell, we wanted online elections from the get go. Running the elections online would allow us to take a ton of pressure off in person voting, opening the way for reducing the number of resources (fewer computers) and polling places. We certainly didn’t expect to be stuck half-way through the process (running the elections in the most costly way possible) for 3 years.
Also, keep in mind that paper elections neccesitate the league of women voters who ask for at least $12,000 a year for thier services.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 3:48 am
mano:
i thought you tax and spend lefties enjoyed wasting money? or don you only like wasting money on “diversity”?
cream away.
Comment by chet — January 23, 2006 @ 10:19 am
Yes it’s true. We liberals would like nothing more than to have the government collect goods and money in the form of taxes and then burn it all in a bonfire each year. But hey, at least we’re not suggesting eating babies like the conservative/libertarians do.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 10:51 am
Well I’m just glad that at least some of the more knowledgeable people here accept that the whole thing has been a fuckup.
And I know the diff between online and computerized elections, people.
There is no financial advantage for the ASUC to not go directly to online elections. Online elections can be tested just fine without computerized polling. But as you know, theres a legitimate worry about online voting, which is why we dont have it, which is why most of the excuses here are moot, since they presume that online voting is a good thing. The problem is that online voting advocates pushed thru the computerized voting without getting a strong consensus on whether online voting would be a good idea. All around, it was a dumbass misadventure.
But then again, about the two things the ASUC is really good at lately is spending money and giving blowjobs to the steady stream of administrators who come in for the proverbial rubber stamp. If you want to get your elected wieners a present, consider kneepads.
Comment by mano — January 23, 2006 @ 11:06 am
FTR, I am not the anonymous poster commenting about candidate hotness. Got in touble for doing someting like that on the record a while back.
Comment by McMike — January 23, 2006 @ 11:08 am
…and don’t forget to thank them for doing less than nothing about fighting student fees that have basically doubled since 2002. Brilliant move by the “student government”.
Comment by mano — January 23, 2006 @ 11:14 am
no actually, that’s the abortionists that are eating babies.
link
Comment by chet — January 23, 2006 @ 11:19 am
Wait mano, I’m confused. Didn’t the ASUC just pass online elections last year? Aren’t we having voting at home in the next election?
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 11:25 am
As for chet, leave it to a right-winger to take a half-assed attempt at humor and use it as an excuse to bring up some vile madman’s derangment in a not so subtle ideological attack.
Hey, you know, there’s lots of right-wing ministers out there abusing and raping their children. Isn’t that funny?
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 11:31 am
You know I actually agree with mano on this one. I think it’s derranged that we give the ASUC money to fight student fee increases and all they’ve done is botch everything up and idly sit by and watch as our fees increase. Student Action and CalSERVE are too busy looking nice for the camera, showing off miniskirts and wearing three piece suits to care about our fees. Hell, some of them even get paid.
Tommasso, libertarians believe that the government should take its hands off and let individuals eat babies. Conservatives eat babies themselves, while liberals are too busy killing babies without actually eating them.
Comment by RepBast1984 — January 23, 2006 @ 12:12 pm
hey cameron how’s ohio treating you?
Comment by Anonymous — January 23, 2006 @ 1:19 pm
Not bad. I’m still considered right wing here, maybe it’s because I’m paleocon.
Comment by RepBast1984 — January 23, 2006 @ 1:57 pm
Tommaso, probably i am confused. All i remember is having max come to the GA being under the distinct impression that the ASUC is still trying to gank crazy gobs of money from grad students for future elections.
wtf. but if its online now then elections should cost next to nothing. clearly you know more than me about the topic, so please correct any misconceptions.
PS: Regarding your post #13, it looks like the neocons beat us “liberals” to the punch, Tommasso! but at least we still have burning man.
Comment by mano — January 23, 2006 @ 2:27 pm
One of the reasons why I’m for full Graduate student autonomy from the ASUC. obviously grad students and undergrads have different goals as students.
Comment by RepBast1984 — January 23, 2006 @ 2:44 pm
Well the GA issue is complicated. The Constitution is quite clear that the GA has to pay for a certain percentage of election unless they prove that election was unfair to grad students. From what I understand, for at least four or five years the ASUC forgot or simply failed to ask for that money and the GA failed to pay it. On the other hand, the GA failed to complain about the election for those years and at this point it would be extremely difficult for them to prove their case. When the ASUC was in a bind they decided to ask for the previous years worth of money and only then did the GA see fit to complain about the conduct.
The law is pretty clearly in the ASUCs favor though that doesn’t really speak to the moral issue of which group is you know “right”. Mostly, it sounds like mutual benign neglect which put the GA in a legal compromising position. If you sit down to a five course meal and start complaining about it only after finishing desert you shoudn’t expect to leave without paying.
I remember a previous election chair telling me about how he went to the GA meeting and the only thing they talked about was how his girlfriends TA was in the GA.
Anyways, when I was election chair I didn’t want to take a stand on that (even though I slipped up and made some comments in favor of the GA I retracted them since it wasn’t my place as election chair to take stands on such issues). Instead we worked very closely with we GA to ensure that grad students were advertised to equitably (which doesn’t mean equally: grad students are harder to turn out so we spent more on them).
As for online elections, though we will be having them fully online this year we still need to fully fund the polling stations. We have no idea how many people will decide to keep using the polling stations and which ones they will preffer to use. The main cost saving will occur only when the ASUC gets off it’s butt and starts axing polling places. We have 18 of them. Some of them can go.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 2:54 pm
Though we will be having fully online elections this year we still need to fully fund the polling stations. We have no idea how many people will decide to keep using the polling stations and which ones they will preffer to use. The main cost saving will occur only when the ASUC gets off it’s butt and starts axing polling places. We have 18 of them. Some of them can go.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 2:55 pm
Also, let’s not let the paleocon and libertarians off the hook. The neo-cons didn’t magically take over the government without any help: conservatives (which includes libertarians, paleocons, theocons and the rest) *voted for them*. Then, when the neo-cons pipe dream fell flat the *voted for them again*.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 2:57 pm
Oops, I didn’t mean to post that long version of the GA/ASUC election money power struggle. I have no idea if that’s what mano was talking about and for all I know that issue was cleared up a while back.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 2:58 pm
Nah Tommasso, Pat Buchanan and the paleocons were against the neocon machine from the beginning. Just like the Naderites never vote for the Democrats either. Asking a paleocon if he likes the Bush administration is like asking a Green if he likes the DLC and the corporate controlled Clinton Administration.
Comment by Anonymity — January 23, 2006 @ 3:41 pm
Is that why Pat Buchana endorsed Bush for re-election? Wow, that’s some pretty stern standing up against the machine you paleocons got there.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 4:15 pm
Where did he endorse Bush for reelection? I believe he either didn’t endorse anyone or endorsed Michael Peroutka.
Comment by Anonymity — January 23, 2006 @ 4:22 pm
AH, never mind, the reluctant support, just like the Green party under Cobb only urged their supporters to vote for them in solid red and blue states but to vote for Kerry in swing states.
Comment by Anonymity — January 23, 2006 @ 4:51 pm
Pat Buchana endorsed Bush in The American Conservative. Though conservatives understandably don’t want to bear responsibility for Bush, it’s a sad fact that they are responsible. Sorry.
http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover.html
“There is a final reason I support George W. Bush. A presidential election is a Hatfield-McCoy thing, a tribal affair. No matter the quarrels inside the family, when the shooting starts, you come home to your own. When the Redcoats approached New Orleans to sunder the Union and Jackson was stacking cotton bales and calling for help from any quarter, the pirate Lafitte wrote to the governor of Louisiana to ask permission to fight alongside his old countrymen. “The Black Sheep wants to come home,” Lafitte pleaded.”
Pat Buchanan
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 4:52 pm
Yeah, just read that.
“The Constitution Party is the party closest to this magazine in philosophy and policy prescriptions, and while one must respect votes for Michael Peroutka by those who live in Red or Blue states, we cannot counsel such votes in battleground states.”
I personally would have backed Peroutka.
Comment by Anonymity — January 23, 2006 @ 4:59 pm
I see, so paleocons don’t support Bush… unless it matters. Yup, I guess their hands really are clean in this whole affair. Darn neo-cons!
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 23, 2006 @ 5:18 pm
what im talking about was the indication that campus polling places were going to be open in the future, so the costs are staying expensive. computerized electioneering only becomes worth it if its cheaper than paper ballots.
the GA vs ASUC debate has no bearing on this, although you all know which side i come down on.
Q.
A.Because you’re stupid?
Comment by mano — January 23, 2006 @ 6:05 pm
No, we’re all very guilty, all of us paleocons that voted for Bush. But considering Kerry was worse, we didn’t want to be responsible for what John Kerry would have done in Bush’s shoes. We’d rather be responsible for Bush than responsible for Kerry.
Same thing for all the lefties that proclaimed how horrible John Kerry was. They all voted for him. No one really had unclean hands in this evil vs. evil election.
Comment by RepBast1984 — January 24, 2006 @ 12:30 am
did you see the Chancellor Berdahl news story today? You could take that $350,000, and you could take several entire humanities and social science departments… like all of Dwinelle, where the GSIs were earning $13,000 before taxes (or maybe it went up this year… I haven’t GSId this year), and give all of them a $1000 raise - so at $100 raise/month over 10 months, with 80 hrs work/month, just Berdahl’s salary would give them a $1.20/hr raise. It seems like it is really UCSF that really sucks up a lot of system funds for their salaries.
Comment by . — January 24, 2006 @ 7:13 am
Whatever RepBlast. You could have had Kerry continue the war competently, try to fix healthcare, all while not breaking any constitutional amendments but you guys choose Bush instead. John Kerry would make a fine president although mainly his virtue would be in stopping the conservative congress from crapping on America.
But I suppose you’re going to tell me that Kerry was a phony elitist who was slightly effemenate and faked his war wounds becuase he was a liar who pandered to liberal interest groups while selling us out to the terrorists. The real probelm with conservatives is that you buy pandering idocy like that and it causes you to vote for people like Bush.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 24, 2006 @ 7:33 am
If the paleoconservative goal were actually to reduce the scope of government, in terms of foreign agression, civil liberties, AND the size of government (since Congress wouldn’t pass any of Kerry’s reforms and Kerry would veto much of the Congressional spending), nothing would have been more effective than electing Kerry. Of course, above all else, Buchanan is a theocrat, and that trumps everything.
Comment by Donald — January 24, 2006 @ 8:12 am
You guys are all morons. Pat Buchanan doesn’t speak for all paleocons and they don’t all do exactly as he does/says. Tomasso, look at the same issue of the American Conservative where Buchanan endorses Bush. There are articles by other authors endorsing both Kerry and Nader.
Also, paleoconservative writer Paul Craig Roberts endorsed Kerry very publicly and well before the election.
Neither candidate was a perfect choice, so votes depended on which issues a person felt more strongly about. PCR was very much against Bush’s cronyism, and so he supported Kerry less than enthusiasticly; he felt that it couldn’t get much worse, and if anything would help reform the Republican party.
Buchanan, on the other hand, realized that, at least in some ways, Bush was perhaps a better choice. He consistently mentioned that Bush would be in the position to name maybe two Supreme Court justices and that he would name better justices than Kerry. Most paleocons would agree- not because they are theocrats, but because they believe activist judges are harmful to the country.
In short, if you’re going to generalize on paleocons, at least be well informed. Paleocons, by no means, stood behind Bush uniformly.
Comment by cw — January 24, 2006 @ 8:42 am
That’s self evident.
Regarding Supreme Court appointments, I would just ask you what are the hot button issues facing supposed judicial activism: abortion, church-state issues, gay rights, gun rights, eminent domain, etc. Not exclusively theocratic, but the intrusion of religion in the government sphere is a recurring issue of concern and possibly the primary issue of concern.
Comment by Donald — January 24, 2006 @ 9:03 am
The issue for the Supreme court is social issues, and most paleocons are socially conservative. Besides, anyone with any political saavy knew that Bush’s marriage amendment was never meant to pass. It was just a measure to get his religious crowd fired up. Tommasso, are you so blinded by your beloved Democratic party that you actually think Kerry would have been COMPETENT in Iraq? I agree that the damn war was a huge mistake to start with. But Kerry being competent in Iraq? That’s just the Democrat party line garbage. Almost as bad as Republicans who say Bush id doing a “fine” job in Iraq.
cw is right, many paleocons did not support Bush. I was an example of one who did using my lessor two evils theory, just like many Greens and far left groups grudgingly supported Kerry. Kerry had no plans whatsoever on Health that the average American could decipher. Of course he had a plan, but a Dean plan would have been more realistic.
In retrospect, I probably support Ralph Nader more than any of the 2004 candidates. His populist values are actually far more conservative than Bush’s values.
As for hov, I disagree that activist judges are necessarily a bad thing. A lot of what congress and the executive does is unconstitutional. And against the principles of the original founders. It just depends on what kind of judicial activism you’re talking about. I personally believe that judges should actively strike down federal laws that giev the federal government more power.
And as for “.” I hate GSI’s.
Comment by RepBast1984 — January 24, 2006 @ 9:55 am
Do we have any reasons to doubt that Kerry would not be competent as an administrator especially compared to the idocy coming from the whitehouse? Remember: Just becuase Rush limbaugh says someting doesn’t means its true.
Comment by Tommaso Sciortino — January 24, 2006 @ 10:22 am
Yeah the fact that the man couldn’t win an election handed to him (Bush had a 49% approval rating) means that the man has a VERY LOW command of public approval. People who didn’t like Bush voted for him. The Democrats are idiots and should be fucking ashamed of themselves. If Kerry can’t even beat a dumbass idiot sitting in the white house, what does that make him? Bush is the first president reelected with such a low approval rating since Harry Truman. And the dumbest since Jimmy Carter.
Tommasso, do yourself a favor and just be quiet until the next election. When Republicans lost with Bob Dole in 1996, they rebuilt their forces at won in 2000. SOmethign tells me the Dems need to follow this advice. But instead they bitch about how the Demcorats “really” won Ohio. Look at your priorities.
Comment by Anonymous — January 24, 2006 @ 10:28 am
Do we have any reasons to believe that Kerry would be competent? His “plan” for Iraq was exactly the same as the Bush plan.
Comment by Beetle — January 24, 2006 @ 10:32 am
**** BREAKING NEWS *******
06-00285
Suspicious Circumstance
8:42 AM - OWEN, Marna (FX-49-O) reports the possible sighting of a
mountain lion, Southside Haas Clubhouse.
police bulletin
Comment by chet — January 24, 2006 @ 10:34 am
“You could have had Kerry continue the war competently”
C’mon, that right there is some funny shit. Surprisingly, rep with his GSI hating self (and fuck you to him too!) did set you straight on the subject.
Plus presidents (and heads of state in general), despite the naive impression you all have from getting your history lessons at the movie theatre, do not “run” wars. And certainly not “competently”. When heads of state do try to stick their grubby little fingers in and “run” wars, they fuck things up worse than they already are. That was a strong reason Hitler was smashed in WWII. It was a strong reason Vietnam was so fucked up.
The role of the head of state is to make excuses for staying at war, and tell lies about how it is going (propaganda). And if your point is that Kerry would have “implemented” the Powell (state dept) plan and not the Rummy (assface) plan, well guess what? By the time Bush started his second term, everyone had already switched to the Powell plan. And you see how well thats working. Competence, my ass.
Comment by mano — January 24, 2006 @ 1:15 pm
yeah.. it’s all so confusing. I think the key is that various issues are of different magnitude of importance for people so one democrat doesn’t equal another democrat. i.e. most democrat voters don’t agree with the Hillary Clinton foreign policy agenda, and the party is probably running her in 2008. Hardly anyone in congress dares represent the majority Iraq position. I supported Nader and will offer his position as the intermediate step towards reformist ‘anarchism’ - which almost all radical anarchists would not agree with, and now Nader and Gore are friends, and some greens didn’t like Nader, and I read some conservative articles about how they like the recent version of Gore - yet liberals didn’t support Gore due to Lieberman’s conservatism, but this is a different sort of conservatism than paleocons hold for foreign policy. If you are thinking about domestic issues though, they would have a lot in common. I know a Nader to republican convertee, yet he drove a Burmese mail order bride to a planned parenthood clinic and doesn’t agree with the GOP social/foreign policy issues except support for Israel, and he’s unhappy with Bush and hates O’Reilly but likes Hannity.
Comment by . — January 24, 2006 @ 2:35 pm
Kerry would be in the EXACT same position Bush is in, only Kerry would bitch that he never would have went into Iraq, even though he voted to go in.
Comment by Anonymous — January 24, 2006 @ 6:31 pm
i love this blog. its so ridiculous.
every post turns into republican vs. democrat. conservative vs. liberal. every goddamn post!
the post was about an asuc senator resigning. yet, the site stalkers always find a way to bring it back to their original fight - why don’t they just meet up at say cafe strada & debate in person rather than typing away on their computer???? the real life personal interaction will be beneficial. didn’t you see the recent ucb study saying that people who spend too much time reading blogs never get laid???
Comment by frat boy. — January 28, 2006 @ 8:35 pm
why don’t you go back to shooting pledges with bb guns and screwing sheep???
Comment by captain anonymous — January 28, 2006 @ 9:18 pm
HAHA Pi Kapp, fucking douchebags. They should have banished your stupid chapter from campus. All the Greeks hate you pricks.
Comment by Anonymous — January 29, 2006 @ 8:29 am
I remember Igor…when he was playing that one game “I love my neighbor” or whatever its called. I clearly remember him saying “I love my neighbor who thinks squealing pigs are sexually stimulating…” Later would I know that he would become a future ASUC senator. Good guy, though.
Comment by N.E. Body — February 2, 2006 @ 3:27 am