Oprah Supports Obama!!!

As the race for presidential party nominations continues, candidates employ tactics to gain support. Some candidates are lucky enough to have qualities that appeal to certain interest groups, so they are able to gain many of these votes effortlessly. For example, Hilary=Female, Obama=Black, or Mitt Romney=Mormon. There are many other tactics almost all candidates’ use when campaigning. They give speeches, participate in debates, give interviews, run ads, send excessive amounts of mail, etc... Another way candidates can increase their popularity is by gaining the support of ‘big names'. All over the news there are stories about celebrities and well-known politicians supporting one candidate or another. These people usually have money to back the candidate they support, but there are limits on donations so it is difficult for any one person to make a huge impact through financial means. Celebrities' real impact comes from publicly announcing their endorsement; it is not surprising that voters are influenced by the opinions of celebrities they respect. Often times the celebrities know the candidate personally and can “vouch” for them.

New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer just announced that he has decided to back Senator Hilary Clinton for president while Maryland Gov. Bill O’Malley made headlines as he is also endorsing her in the upcoming election. In a CNN interview, Oprah Winfrey recently announced her endorsement for Obama. She is arguably the most influential woman in the United States. Any book she recommends immediately jumps to the top of every bestseller list and any product she talks about has women everywhere flocking to stores to purchase it. Even though she has not made a financial contribution, $2,300 cannot compare to the kind of support she has given the candidate by her public endorsement.

Although this is an ignorant approach to choosing which candidate to support, many voters are affected. People should take more time to read the news and learn about candidates and their positions.

Giuliani's Trouble with Kinda, Sorta, Sometimes Supporting Abortion Rights

Giuliani has received a lot of criticism from the Republican Party because of his stance on abortion rights. The former New York mayor has been very contradictory with his position, and it has shown to be his greatest vulnerability as he vies for the republican presidential nomination. He says that he "hates" abortion, but he supports a women's right to choose. He supports a ban on late-term abortions, and vowed not to lift a ban that gives poor women federal money to afford them. Giuliani also said that it would be "OK" if the Supreme court overturned Roe v. Wade, then said that "it would also be OK" if the judges use the case as a precedent and continue to uphold it. More information on this can be found here.

Giuliani’s tax returns reveal that he and his ex-wife donated a total of 900$ worth of gifts to Planned Parenthood in the mid-1990s. Planned Parenthood performed 265,000 abortions in 2005, totaling 3% of it's patient's services. However, Planned Parenthood does perform other services, such as counseling, birth control, pregnancy testing, and treatment for STDs. Giuliani claims to have given these donations because he supports the way Planned Parenthood makes information available to people, such as information on adoption- a good alternative to abortion. More information on this can be found here.

Another hopeful, Senator John McCain, stated that a candidate for the Republican Party that supports abortion rights violates one of the "fundamental principles of a conservative". Unlike most prospective candidates, Giuliani’s views do not strictly follow those of the democratic or republican parties. This means that while he has some views that agree with each party, he has other ones that piss them off. In this case, the left agree with his support for abortion rights, while conservatives hate it. Another example is his stance on gay rights. This refusal to strictly adhere to one parties established set of views makes it especially hard for Giuliani to get a presidential nomination from either side.

Sarkozy Goes the Spoils

Nicholas Sarkozy, the French candidate from the UMP (Union pour le mouvement populaire) party, defeated socialist candidate Segolene Royal in the French elections on Sunday. The voter turnout, according to this blog, was a whopping 85.5%. In his victory speech, Sarkozy said that voters "have chosen to break with the habits and behavior of the past...I want to give French people back the pride of being French," in reference to the economic decline that has been haunting France. Economic reform is high on Sarkozy's agenda--He plans to boost economic growth by way of tax cuts, reducing defecits, and loosening labor laws, the kind of free-market economic policies embraced by the United States and Britain.

An unabashed admirer of America, Sarkozy had a special message for the United States (with which France has had a lot of tension lately, especially in regard to the war in Iraq): "I'd like to appeal to our American friends to say that they can count on our friendship, but I would also like to say that friendship means accepting that your friends don't necessarily see eye to eye with you." With a fresh look at relations with the United States, it will be interesting to see the development of American/French relations under Sarkozy.

May Day! May Day! Immigrants Overboard!

On Tuesday, the May Day immigration rallies were held in Los Angeles, Boston, and Chicago once again this year, hoping to rally as much support as last year. However, this year’s turnout was only a fraction of the million-plus protesters that came out last year. It was projected that after the numerous immigration raids in the last year, the immigrant community was hesitant to participate in the protest.

In the Boston Area alone, marches were set up in East Boston, Lowell, Fitchburg, Amherst, and Worcester. Some of the workers arrested in the New Bedford Raid spoke at
Harvard Square and Jamaica Plain. No rallies were planned at Atlanta though, because many of the immigrants were afraid of a new state law that was set to be in effect in July. This law would require verification that adults must be legal who seek non-emergency state-administered benefits.

Many of those who marched set the immediate goal of keeping immigration reform from being forgotten by the time the 2008 elections came ago. However, others feel that the marches themselves are not enough to force Congress to pass immigration legislation and instead are focusing on citizenship and voter registration as opposed to street demonstrations. "If we don't act, then both the Democratic and Republican parties can go back to their comfort zones and do nothing," said Angelica Salas, director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights of Los Angeles.

Immigrant rights groups in conjunction to faith-based advocates have been pushing for allowing immigrants without documentation to be permitted to earn credits toward permanent status if they are employed and meet requirements. The recent immigration raids and rallies have been focusing points that have captured the attention of the public to see the immediate need for immigration reform. As with most public policy issues, it appears that various solutions are available to solve the immigration issue. If the plebiscitary vision is in play, then perhaps politicians will recognize that the lobbying and public support is present in immigration rights groups and should make decisions accordingly. However, it is still unclear what type of legislations will be brought up to the floor to undergo the “idea->bill->law->regulation” process prior changes in immigration will occur.

Drug Samples, Good or Bad?

In recent months there has been much discussion over the pros and cons of doctors having free samples at their disposal to give to patients.

Some of the benefits to free samples are that patients are able to begin treatment immediately. They can also see if they can tolerate the medicine without going out and buying a full prescription. There are also huge benefits for doctors who treat poor patients. With samples they have drugs on hand for them to use, especially for the uninsured. In addition many physicians feel that these sales representatives give them up to date information on the new drugs that are available on the market.

There has also been discussion about the negative aspects of free samples. Some critics think that when prescribing medicine, doctors won’t choose the best drugs but instead the ones that they have available in their cabinets because those are prevalent in their minds. In addition, some doctors feel as if they are being overran by sales representatives and that their products are just piling up in their facilities. When doctors give patients samples, they are of new and expensive brand-name medications, this would drive up the cost of healthcare for people in the long run.

The biggest problem with this free sampling is the relationship that is established between the doctor and the sales representative. This is just a small part is the huge controversy of how much pharmaceutical companies are controlling way too much in the industry. When their power is as unchecked as it has been in the past years than the companies will continue to be able to increase prices for drugs and control the entire industry. Recent attempts have been made by the Food and Drug Administration to regulate the power of the pharmaceutical companies but it will be interesting to see how much of a difference these changes make.

A large part of this countries public policy comes from agencies. As a part of the United States Health and Human Services Agency, it is up to the FDA to step up and control these pharmaceutical companies.

The Smoke from the Bus Goes Round and Round

In 2005 Congress passed the bipartisan Diesel Emissions Reduction Act which authorized states to receive $1 billion to help reduce diesel emissions. School buses are one vehicle that uses diesel fuel, and buses manufactured before 1990 are not equipped with the filters required to meet emissions standards. What is particularly alarming is that the smoke circulates back through the open windows of the bus, making it unavoidable for children to breath in a higher concentration of pollutants for the duration of their ride.The Environmental Protection Agency has shown that breathing in these emissions can cause health problems ranging from headaches to asthma to lung cancer. Though congress has passed the act and research done by the EPA validates it, states have yet to see any money.

Instead, progress has been made only in due to federalism and individual state initiative. In California due to an elections system of initiative and referendum, voters approved a $200 million measure to buy filters for older school buses.

Liberal Law Professors in Favor of Gun Rights

When speaking of stereotypes, it is common to assume that a liberal scholar would be in favor of gun control. In recent years however, there has been a noticeable trend amongst liberal law professors to contradict the above assumption. Though this group remains very much a minority, professors such as Lawrence Tribe from Harvard and Akhil Reed Amar from Yale have reevaluated their interpretation of the second amendment and concluded that it does indeed protect the individual’s right to bear arms.

This scholarly backing of the individual rights view of the second amendment is credited by Mr. Levy as being one of the reasons that his client’s lawsuit against the District of Columbia was successful. Mr. Levy was a lawyer for the plaintiff in the case Parker v. District of Columbia brought before a federal appellate court in March. The court made a surprising decision to strike down a gun control law because it violated the second amendment. If the decision is not reversed by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, then it is likely that the case will appear before the Supreme Court.

"Obvious" Inventions not Worthy of Patents

Patents based on combining previous inventions might become harder to obtain, thanks to the Supreme Court ruling in KSR International Co. v Teleflex Inc. The ruling raises the standards for proving an invention is more than just “ordinary innovation” and “obvious” to experts in the invention’s field. In other words, if an invention is not truly new and innovative but is simply something anyone with expertise in the subject would have come up with eventually, a company or individual does not merit a patent on the invention simply for making it first. As Justice Kennedy, author of the unanimous opinion wrote, “Were it otherwise, patents might stifle, rather than promote, the progress of useful arts.”

In this case, KSR developed an adjustable gas pedal for cars and trucks. The system used an electronic sensor attached the pedal’s pivot to relay the information about pressure applied to the pedal for acceleration purposes. Teleflex sued KSR, claiming that KSR’s pedal infringed on a patent they held for a similar adjustable pedal with electronic sensor. KSR argued that Teleflex had just combined pre-existing inventions in an obvious way, and therefore the patent was invalid. The Supreme Court decided in favor of KSR, saying the Teleflex patent was an obvious upgrade of existing technology.

For more on this case, see here. Or, to see how this decision might be practically applied to a case like software patents, read here.

Look Ma! New Polls!

President Bush’s approval rating has dropped to an all-time low of 28%, the same as President Carter’s in 1979. This is the first time a president’s approval rating has dropped that low since Carter, and the public seems to be projecting its disapproval of Bush onto the Republican candidates. Newsweek published new polls showing Americans favoring Democratic candidates in every question posed, such as “Do you lean more toward Clinton, the Democrat; or Giuliani, the Republican?” This poll can be rather confusing though, the current total saying Clinton is favored by 49% over Giuliani’s 46% with 5% being undecided, but the individual breakdowns amongst Republicans, Democrats and Independents seem inconsistent with this. 89% of Republicans favor Giuliani over the 9% who favor Clinton, but 12% of Democrats say they favor Giuliani over 85% favoring Clinton. Then amongst Independents Giuliani is favored 53% to 40%. It is difficult to see how this adds up to a majority favoring Clinton overall. The polls also show that Clinton is heavily favored over Obama and Edwards amongst registered Democrats (51% to 39% over Obama and 57% to 38% over Edwards), though it has decreased a bit over time. Giuliani is still the favorite Republican. Another poll shows that amongst registered Democrats and Republicans, 38% of Republicans are dissatisfied with their party candidates while only 14% of Democrats are dissatisfied with their candidate options.

The methods used to gather this data fall into the trap of polling we discussed in class because they used telephone interviews with 1,001 people. This means the results are skewed based on who was available to take a call and who was willing to answer. We know from class that women tend to answer the phone more often than men, and it is probably not the best representation of moderates since those who answered the interview most likely felt strongly about the issues. Also, 1,001 people is a relatively small sample of the entire U.S. population, and cannot account for the views of those who do not have access to a telephone or are not home during the times the interviewers have called, such as the poor who work many hours and may not have a phone.

The NY Times has this article summarizing the GOP debate last Thursday, which they say “highlighted a party in flux as it struggles to figure out how to retain the White House for a third consecutive term”. Oh, drama.

Veto Showdown Over Hate-Crimes Protection Bill?

Veto, veto, veto.

Bush, again, may exercise veto power over legislation passed in the House of Representatives to protect people from crimes committed against their "gender, sexual orientation, and gender identity".

Senior advisors recommended Bush veto the bill based on the following:

"the law is unnecessary, an intrustion on federalism, and constitutionally questionable as an exercise of federal power"

To a gay rights crusader like myself, vetoing a bill protecting people from crimes directed specifically at sexuality seems to be nothing short of an anti-gay double standard -- sexual orientation and gender identity remain frighteningly unprotected in many areas of law. Upon deeper examination of the text of the bill, however, I found my position to be obscured by the fact that the bill does not simply add sexual orientation to the 1968 federal hate-crimes law, but also considerably expands the power of the federal government to intervene in hate crimes.

According to the New York Times,

"The bill approved by the House, worded to cover people who are transsexual and transgender, would make it easier for federal authorities to take part in hate-crime investigations if local investigators are unable or unwilling to pursue them. The current hate-crime law protects people only while they are engaged in a federally protected activity, like voting or going to school, but the bill would lower the barriers."

Other opponents of the bill have argued that the bill's language is so broad that it could potentially encroach on free speech. Many law pundits, however, have come to consensus that this argument should not stand in the discussion of the bill's constitutionality.

The bill's advocates argue that the expansion of federal power in hate crimes coincides well with the addition of sexual orientation and gender identity because local powers may not enforce the law due to a prejudicial disposition toward this category of peoples.

The bill goes to the Senate next before a final draft reaches the President.

Women Need to Support Clinton

Hillary Clinton is relying more and more on women for campaign contributions to keep up with Barack Obama. Only 27% of fundraised dollars come from women, but with a woman running for president, Clinton thinks she can change that. Women are interested in politics and have money to donate, but they feel that their views have not been recognized by potential candidates. Until now? Women’s groups, such as the National Organization for Women have already officially endorsed Clinton. So has Emily’s List, “the largest grassroots political network…dedicated to building a progressive America by electing pro-choice Democratic women to federal, state, and local office.” These groups are helping Clinton raise money by reaching out to its members on her behalf. "I think women are going to be the foundation of her victory," said Ellen R. Malcolm, president of Emily's List. If Clinton can get most of the women’s vote, which you would think is very possible, she has a huge chance of winning the election.

Vietnam-Era War Protesting, v2.0

A newer, more calculated form of war protesting has begun to push Democrats in Washington, one much more advanced than those in the days of Vietnam. The New York Times reports increasing efforts from groups like MoveOn.org to systematically "unify Democrats, divide Republicans, and isolate the President." While many groups called the recently-vetoed timetable resolution too timid, MoveOn.org stuck with Pelosi's decision, feeling that unity within the party, in this case, was more important than getting the troops home sooner than later. Aside from having weekly meetings with House and Senate Democrats, this antiwar coalition (including not just MoveOn but groups like the National Security Union and Service Employees' Union) marks a more shrewd movement than seen in previous wars. They have systematically focused on weak holds for Republicans where the 2008 race may be particularly tough, and have also sent former generals and military officials to directly persuade lawmakers. As for Bush's veto? The coalition organized over 350 rallies and 20 news conferences in response. “This is act one of a three-act play,” said Tom Matzzie, MoveOn's Washington director. “Act two will be the summer. During the summer, our job is to create a firestorm of opposition.”

Dems: Are You Ready for Another Round?

Is anyone surprised about Bush’s veto of the Iraq war spending bill? If Bush is known for nothing else (minus the war, of course), he may be for his stubbornness. Anyone who didn’t expect this is just downright silly.

Pelosi states, "The president has turned a tin ear to the wishes of the American people." Isn’t the will of the American public important? Are we hypocrites hoping for democracy in the Middle East while our leaders cannot listen to public opinion at home?

On the contrary, while Pelosi and the Democrats realize that being the majority congressional party isn’t enough, others acknowledge that, despite their deepest desires to solve the world’s problems, this simply may not be their area of expertise. Among these is Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-Calif) who states that politicians should not make military decisions.

Fact: The American people want military personnel out of Iraq.
Fact: Massive amounts of money fund the war daily.
Fact: Wars are typically fought and won based upon sound military strategy.
Fact: The bill vetoed by Bush went against sound military strategy.

In the meantime, we shall watch the political tug-of-war in Congress as the Democrats try to bait Republicans to their side. This veto demonstrates that the will of the public does not always dictate how things will run. I vote to let the military handle the military.