The Eisenhower Institute of Gettysburg College

Swine Flu: Upgraded to WHO level 4

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:51:00 +0000

It is difficult sometimes to wait as an epidemic increases. Poor Mexico is being hit with this crisis and it will impact every part of their country for years in the future. Often epidemics have a bad effect on economies for many years after the actual epidemic is over. There is never an "ideal" place for an epidemic to start, and frankly with influenza it can happen any time, anywhere. A virus just has to have the right conditions to mutate and it happens. Or in this case an animal--zoonotic--form of the disease transferred between species.

One quote struck me today in La Jornada-the prevailing newspaper in Mexico City. I'll translate:

"The secretary general of the UN, Ban Ki-moon, alerted saying that 'the poorest countries are especially vulnerable,' to the sprouting of swine flu and he insists to, '...demonstrate global solidarity...'" / El secretario general de la ONU, Ban Ki-moon, alertó que los países más pobres son especialmente vulnerables al brote de gripe porcina, e instó ademostrar solidaridad global...' (http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/04/28/index.php?section=politica&article=003n1pol)

He mentions that the poorest countries are the most vulnerable to this epidemic. From our perspective this might seem odd, but it's a reality for all poorer countries.

Sadly poor countries are often developing countries. They lack much infrastructure--from public health to transportation--which makes managing any epidemic even harder. To add to these problems, generally the people in developing countries have weaker immune systems in result of poorer balanced nutrition and may be afflicted with other conditions that make their immune systems weaker.

Neglected Tropical Diseases (NTDs) are one of the groups of diseases that afflict most developing countries and lower the ability of the immune system to function properly. To top that off, many of these regions are in risk of malarial disease--which won't be getting any better due to global warming and the expanding mosquito ridden regions. Malarial episodes cause a severe hit to the immune system, subsequently making them more vulnerable to common colds and flu. These are the things you do not want happening during an epidemic of influenza.

Between the lack of health infrastructure and weakened immune systems of people in the developing world, containing the swine flu within the country of origin is important, but almost impossible with how globalized the world is today. It's not as simple as cutting travel since imports and exports have to go in and out of countries. This is one of the many reasons why developed countries should be helping to eradicate the diseases in the developing world. Our lackadaisical attitude towards the elimination of these diseases could in the end cause our nation trauma. Getting our legislators to understand this is a different idea completely.

Swine Flu: Public Health Crisis 101

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Sun, 26 Apr 2009 23:53:00 +0000

The news media today is all over the burgeoning flu epidemic that appears to have started in Mexico City, Mexico. Over the past several decades we have been quite fortunate not to have many of these virulent-influenza strains/outbreaks of influenza. We know from history that epidemic outbreaks can shape and influence history. Take for instance the NYC Influenza epidemic of 1918. We often forget that thousands of people die from the the flu each year in the United States. That's why its vital for everyone to be vaccinated. Once there's a certain proportion of vaccinated individuals within a system, an immunity for that disorder is conferred with that disease, known by epidemiologists as herd immunity. Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that that will help us with this strain since its vaccine resistant.

From a policy end, public health officials always struggle a balance when preparing for health disasters. As we recently learned from Katrina, the best way to plan for natural and health disasters is not during the epidemic. However, time and again it's difficult for people to open dialogue about disaster preparedness before an epidemic happens. With influenza, this is a virus that has the ability to mutate quickly and spread rapidly.

With the world being more and more connected because of globalization, it is even more important that countries communicate and cooperate on prevention and elimination strategies. This is another example of a situation that does not improve by building a wall dividing countries. Toward this end, data sharing information is perhaps the most important foreign policy so all organizations involved can begin to see how far the epidemic may have spread. Using this information, organizations like the World Health Organization, Ministerio de Salud (mexico) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) can begin to piece together the current epidemic to make better informed decisions about prevention a pandemic.

Until our government and researchers begin working on this epidemic, we shouldn't worry too much about this problem. However, as always, its best to keep our immune systems in top shape by eating a balanced diet, sleeping 8 hours a night for adults, exercizing, reducing stress, etc. This is better said then done during finals for students at Universities across America!

Oh, and in case you missed it earlier: Get your flu shot and other recommended vaccines.

Public Health Policy - Shaped by science, opinion, or politized?

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Wed, 08 Apr 2009 00:32:00 +0000

Over the past century, rigorous safety and ethical standards have been developed in order to prevent patient harm in research with humans and animals. In fact all institutions doing research with humans or animals need to have an Institutional Review Board (IRB) in order to conduct research. A perspective in today's New York Times suggest that NYC may attempt to be their "own" IRB, which adds to many articles written about this directive over the past several months.

NYC has been trying to make several community level changes in order to improve the health of its city. Many of the mandates have been very controversial. One instance was the requirement that all restaurants need to have the nutritional value posted for their food items. The indoor clean air quality act was one in order to prevent exposure to second hand smoke. Another example is the trans fats ban.

The risk in the most recent idea to require restaurants to cut the sodium levels in half. Mr. Tierney points out is that there is very controversial evidence that this is an effective strategy to prescribe a widespread mandate for lower sodium in NYC. Moreover, the fact that there has been controversy within the medical community is worrisome since its the basis of this public policy initiative.

It's very alarming that this could be rolled out across a city without large agreement within the scientific community. Normally, as the article mentions, this would have to be exposed to the rigor of scientific safety standards to protect the individual. On a community level, this would mitigate the normal well intended safety standards.

I think we can all agree that science and policy must become more united in order to reduce the incidence of obesity, type II diabetes, and cardiovascular disease in the United States. However, I'm not sure that this is the best way to approach it. Creating increased access to mass transit, constructing additional bike lanes, constructing running lanes in parks, encouraging citizens to walk and excersize, removing soda and vending machines from schools, etc, all seem like better, longer-lasting solutions.

It's tricky to get an overweight country to become more active and to make better decisions about what to eat and to become more active. On the other hand, doing nothing isn't trimming down the epidemic, its expanding just like the waistlines of Americans. What do you think about this reform strategy?

Re: Sad week for Argentina

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Mon, 06 Apr 2009 16:44:00 +0000

As a follow-up to my last post about Argentina, there was a very good article in the New York Times this week about the legacy of Alfonsín. I hope you take the time to read it:

Argentina Mourns an Honest Leader

Sad week for Argentina

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Thu, 02 Apr 2009 13:25:00 +0000

On March 31, 2009, Raúl Alfonsín died (82) years old. He was the first democratically elected president of Argentina after the series of devastating military dictatorships that ravaged Argentina for decades. This is a sad week for Argentina and South America because Alfonsín represented in many ways hope for the future of South America in a post-dictator world. Alfonsín is lauded for bringing many people to justice that committed various crimes during the military dictatorships in Argentina. He was highly criticized during the time because he brought many of his own political party (los radicales) to justice.

Sadly Aflonsín stepped down in result of rapid inflation and defaulting on foreign loans. But the contributions that this president made with negotiating and mitigating human rights violations in Argentina cannot go unremembered. In the US we have heard little about this important leader's death, which is sad since this man was a stalwart support of justice, equality and the virtues of Human Rights.

See the NYTimes Article Below:
New York Times Article

Media of Negativity

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Mon, 23 Mar 2009 00:29:00 +0000

If you've turned on the news in the last 3 months, you surely have noticed the onslaught of negativity. News is a very central part of policy-work gets completed in Washington--I know few who will argue this point. However, it troubles me that all of the shows are focuses on how "bad" the economy is, instead of any marginal good out in the world. The world is in a reset period. Anyone who has studied anything about economics knows that there are cycles, and that this storm will be weathered. I personally think this economic downturn is in someways good for US citizens.

Our country for most of my existence has lived under the facade that we could live beyond our means on borrowed money. The "spend it now, pay it later" attitude was viral for the past decade. Credit flowed to the point that banks started making sloppy decisions. It is no more evident than in the real estate market: People bought houses they could not afford and banks permitted them! Consumption was rampant. Our country is addicted to things. We see things. We buy them. And we're not satisfied, so we want even more things.

Through this whole mess, I think it's difficult to point the finger at one person. It's convoluted. The banks were at fault. The government was at fault (especially at deregulating derivatives). Corporate America was at fault--there clearly is a ceiling of CEO's salaries. Individuals were at fault--we know better than to live on borrowed money and spend beyond our means. Lastly, the media was to blame--the writing was on the wall and the media did not scream loud enough.

Now they screaming. We hear them complaining about how bad things are and interviewing countless people about the "...deepening recession." Well if they keep preaching this message, the media and public perception could forecast a deeper recession on us.

Take home message that we all could live by: Live within your means. If you have extra money: Spend, save, or donate it to charitable organizations--they are all hurting right now. Support local small business. Buy local food. Try to live sustainably.

If we all followed this simple advice I learned from being raised on a farm, we would all be better off. Trouble is, it's terribly tough to implement.

U.S. - Russia

noreply@blogger.com (Denitsa Koleva) — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 01:39:00 +0000

I have for some time now been planning a panel discussion on U.S. – Russia relations as part of the Institute’s program this Spring. It seems appropriate in the context of the actions of Vice President Biden to change the focus of foreign policy of the country. It appears that the new administration will work towards fixing the impaired relationship with Russia. The moving force behind this change is the shift in foreign policy priorities by the new administration towards focusing on Iran and Afghanistan, and the desire to ensure support on the matter from the Russian side. A stated change of attitudes on the issue of Georgia’s joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is believed to have followed after proposals for the U.S. to leave Kyrgyzstan’s Manas air base through which NATO and U.S. troops are supplied in Afghanistan. It has been argued that Russia influenced the decision to request the eviction. The most recent developments come after the meeting between Vice President Biden and Deputy Prime Minister Ivanov in Munich as both have expressed the intention to work towards better co-operation between the two countries.

Last week...

noreply@blogger.com (Denitsa Koleva) — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 01:17:00 +0000

I would like to briefly mention two important and interesting events from last week.

First, the House of Representatives passed the $819 billion stimulus package proposed by President Obama with a vote of 244 to 188, which meant zero Republican support together with some Democrats (11) voting against it as well. Definitely, not a bipartisan bill. In an earlier post, I mentioned the discussion of the natural lags associated with the infrastructure part of the stimulus package. Even though, it is appropriate to question the immediate efficiency of the stimulus in light of this, it is also appropriate to ask the question whether this is just a temporary measure to strengthen the economy or an effort to ensure sustainable growth even after it heals.

The second event was President Obama’s signing of a measure which would again permit the funding of health organizations which promote or provide abortions in developing countries. I found this interesting because of its possible implications for the perception of the US among such countries as I remembered a comment by one of the Eisenhower Institute’s guest speakers last semester. The guest spoke on the fears expressed by international participants years after the Fourth World Conference in Beijing of a possible retraction of the advancements made with respect to women’s reproductive health provoked by the election of President Bush in 2001. Most of you probably remember that one of the first acts by the then President Bush was to reinstate the Global Gag Rule.

Legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Education & Access Revisited

noreply@blogger.com (neagley) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 22:23:00 +0000

Throughout the week, I've been preoccupied with evaluating, or perhaps reevaluating, the meaning of Martin Luther King Jr's (MLK) legacy as we have elected the first African American president of the United States, Barack Obama. I reflect upon some of the wisdom contained in Martin Luther King's letter he wrote in a Birmingham jail, with some excerpts:

We have waited for more than 340 years for our constitutional and God given rights. The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter. Perhaps it is easy for those who have never felt the stinging darts of segregation to say, "Wait." But when you have seen vicious mobs lynch your mothers and fathers at will and drown your sisters and brothers at whim; when you have seen hate filled policemen curse, kick and even kill your black brothers and sisters; when you see the vast majority of your twenty million Negro brothers smothering in an airtight cage of poverty in the midst of an affluent society…when you have to concoct an answer for a five year old son who is asking: "Daddy, why do white people treat colored people so mean?"…Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?"

…Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal. Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured? (Read the whole letter)

After contemplation, I think there one particular area that impedes our country from fully realizing MLK's dream: Education and access.

Access & Education

Having an African American president is an accomplishment for our country--in many ways we still haven't yet realized--but we need to face that reality that inequality exists. Furthermore, it's not the time to become apathetic to the continued need to restore access for all, since access for minority groups in the United States still varies greatly. We are fortunate that President Obama can serve as an example as the type of achievement possible in the United States for minorities. Unfortunately it doesn't eliminate the serious problems facing our country. It is known that education and access for the future are inextricably linked. Knowing this link, I think one of the most important things our nation needs to continue to work on in order to fully realize MJK's dream is equality in education.

Still in the modern United States, where a person is born largely dictates their ability to graduate High School or go to College. This inequality continues to persist along socioeconomic and racial lines. It is known that there are lower educational expectations for people growing up in rural or urban areas than in many suburban school districts. Receiving my own primary and secondary education in a rural school district, I am aware of these challenges that parallel the economic access of the community.

How can we expect all of the citizens of the United States to have equal opportunity to find their "American dream" if we subjugate thousands of our own citizens to sub-par public schools? According to the National Assessment for Educational Progress, 4th graders growing up in low-income communities are 3 grade levels behind their peers in high-income communities, and 50% of these students won't graduate by the time they're 18 years old. Until we move beyond the apartheid war waged in our low income communities, there's little hope to fully realize MLK's dream. Along with this, I think our nation needs to revisit the integration debate. Many school districts, especially urban districts, still are cast along racial lines. Our culture needs to have serious conversations about the ramifications of creating an educational apartheid in the 21st century, as suggested by Jonathan Kozol in his book Shame of the Nation.

Luckily there are programs and people within the United States that are fighting against this educational injustice. Programs such as Teach for America have started closing the achievement gap. Other organizations have been formed to encouraged early retirees to dedicating time in the classroom either teaching or volunteering in public schools. These will help somewhat, but are in many ways putting band-aids over bigger problems.

Our nation needs lasting education reform that encourages bright graduates of colleges to becoming teachers. No Child Left Behind sought to work on this problem, but at the end of the day probably created even more problems. Any program that punishes schools that are underachieving by eliminating funding obviously misses the problem in the first place.

Our country deserves embrace the fact that kids who are minorities and/or live in poverty can achieve educational results. For far too long the prevailing assumption has been that certain groups did not have the ability to achieve. Study after study show that these students can achieve. They need to help to high levels of academic expectation and rigor in order to achieve the results. Wow, these sure are radical concepts: high levels of academic expectation.

Coming back to MLK's legacy for a minute, my last point is still linked with the underlying racism that our nation needs to deal with. Even though our country has come a very long way, racism is alive and continues to fester in our nation. We have the ingenuity and talent within this country to reestablish access and educational opportunities for everyone and erradicate racism once and for all--living in the richest country in the world. Our largest investment in our future as a sovereign nation begins with investing in our next generation of citizens.

- - - - - - - - -
Note:

There are plenty of other areas our country must address relating to MLK's vision: Equality under the law, voting, and GLBT issues for instance. This post focused only on two areas, but I don't want to minimize other important issues our nation must face. His vision will become more important our demographic population continues to become more mixed and the edges of one's ethnicity blurs.

Lags

noreply@blogger.com (Denitsa Koleva) — Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:24:00 +0000

One thing that I found interesting in light of President Obama’s Inauguration is a discussion in the AP from last week of the actual lags that the proposed fiscal stimulus may experience. Some of the economists at the Congressional Budget Office have argued that the proposed infrastructure projects will actually take several years to boost the economy. According to the CBO, stimulating the economy through investment in public projects may not be as effective because some of the funds aimed at strengthening the economy will be released over the next one to four years. As the AP indicates, less than half of the proposed $30 billion will reach the economy in the next four years.

The current recession is expected to last more than a year. However, the economy is likely to begin recovering towards the end of 2009. What is the conclusion? A good deal of the funds specifically meant for infrastructure will reach the economy when it is actually expected to be in the process of healing. Even though, this is only a part of the solution proposed to fix the problem, it is also an illustration of the challenges that the new administration is to face. Definitely, the campaign is over and the new administration is in. I am curious to hear the 44th President’s State of the Union Address in 2010, read it alongside his Inauguration Speech and assess the implications of graduating in an economy that is still healing.

New York State of Mind

madeline.shepherd@gmail.com (Madeline Shepherd) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:02:00 +0000

Today New York Governor Paterson named Representative Kirsten Gillibrand as the woman to fill the space left by Senator Hillary Clinton as she moves into the role of Secretary of State. As a native New Yorker, I'm pleased that another woman is stepping into state leadership; however, as a liberal Democrat I am less impressed by Gillibrand's NRA endorsement. But coming from the 20th district, her centrism helped her get where she is and will no doubt aid her in Washington, D.C. Originally a Manhattan attorney, Gillibrand unseated a four-term Republican when she ran in 2006 during the midterm elections that turned the tide of Congress in favor of the Democratic party. However, Gillibrand has clearly proven she is more than just a one hit wonder with this appointment.

Watching Democracy in Action

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Fialkoff) — Fri, 23 Jan 2009 18:25:00 +0000

For me, the Inauguration was more than the swearing in of Barack Obama as 44th President of the United States, it was watching Democracy in Action. It is a testament to our democratic system that we can transition from one administration to another without major bumps in the road. Although I have seen other inaugurations, this was the first time I truely understood the action of peacefully swearing in a new leader. Senator Feinstein said it best when she was describing that other transitions in other states do not go as smoothly as our.

As a political science major, I begin to fully understand the importance of peaceful and clean transitions for the continued political development within our political system. Watching the inauguration allowed me to fully appreciate our history and our political cultural development. It was a great experience to witness history and watch as one chapter in American history ends, and another one begins.

Yes We Can

madeline.shepherd@gmail.com (Madeline Shepherd) — Thu, 22 Jan 2009 02:07:00 +0000

Of course the title for my first post about the Obama administration is predictable, but the now familiar phrase rings true nevertheless. Watching the inauguration of the 44th president, who also happens to be the first of African American descent, was a moment in which I felt unspeakable pride in my country. No, I wasn't among the brazen millions out in the cold streets of Washington, D.C., but I knew that they too felt the significance of the moment and the potential it fortells of the next four years.

Students across campus watched in dorm rooms and classrooms, online and in the Ballroom, some excited, other disappointed, but all happy to hear a shout-out to Gettysburg in the inaugural speech. And Obama seemed to encapsulate the attitude of our country perfectly- that, yes, we are in the midst of economic difficulty, but that we are more than capable of remaining the world power we have been for most of the past century as long as we are united in goals and vigilant with our efforts to achieve them.

I think this is a time for new positivity, and new confidence in the American government.

The Great American Picnic

noreply@blogger.com (Owen T. Carhart) — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 08:27:00 +0000

The most recent debacle on the campaign concerning Barack Obama and Reverend Wright has me raising many questions about American Politics. Four years ago when I was a senior in High School I had a Political Science teacher who had many interesting theories about American Politics. One of my favorite was his analogy of the Great American Picnic. His theory was that we in America are having one giant picnic.
When America was first founded our picnic was small and we only invited White Property Owners to come to the picnic but as the country changed we started inviting more and more people to the party. Interestingly, during this race, two groups who were previously not invited to the picnic are now trying to chair the picnic committee! One way that I look at this is as though the United States electoral system is a picnic, and each state is a table at the picnic. Well what inevitably happens when you get the community together for a celebration?? Gossip..Perhaps, this is why we seem to have become so infatuated with the Reverend Wright story and Senator Clinton's Bosnia comments.
Now that we're done with the small talk (policy) we have to start the gossip. The media, or the picnic planners, are hard at work trying to find anything to talk about that doesn't have to do with GDP growth or boring financial numbers; after all, what fun is a picnic if the picnic theme is "Economic Growth."
Now, I may have some of you really wondering what in God's name I am talking about. Essentially, when I first started hearing the Reverend Wright Story and all the political chaos that has resulted from it I was simply asking myself why. Why is this on my television and in my newspaper?
The answer is actually quite simple, and for those of us who believe that we can come together as a nation and have a political campaign free of negativity; here comes the reality check.
The purpose of a political campaign is obviously to win. When you are losing it becomes advantageous to "go negative." If we assume that all candidates are losing at some point then naturally there will always continue to be negative politics because at some point it will always be advantageous to go negative..... So, whether it is Hillary Clinton, or Barack Obama who has to face John McCain one thing is for sure, it will be negative and it will be divisive. Some call it Cynicism, some call it realism. You decide.

Super Tuesday II

noreply@blogger.com (Jay R. Hagerman) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:41:00 +0000

Super Tuesday Two: Texas and Ohio
By Jay R. Hagerman
Tursday March 13, 2008

As I stated in previous articles, I knew that Hilary Clinton would win the much needed states of Ohio and Texas in the March 4th Primary. This was a heavily desired boost in her campaign and for the time being, may have brunted the powerful Obama hurricane of enthusiasm. Clinton managed to win three of the four contested states on March 4th gaining Rhode Island in addition to Ohio and Texas. Obama won the most liberal state in the union, Vermont. This victory did not put Clinton ahead in the delegate count but has given her a chance. She is still behind Obama by about 100 or so delegates. Fox News and the Associated Press report Clinton with 1468 delegates and Obama with 1578. The Democratic nominee needs 2025 to gain the party nomination. On the other side of the aisle, John McCain won all four of the March 4th primary states and gained over the 1191 delegates needed to get the Republican nomination. Mike Huckabee suspended his campaign and pledged to help McCain in any way he could. The question remains has anything changed? McCain is now the heir instead of the heir apparent and Obama is still in the delegate lead, so it would seem not. Although the status quo seems to be maintained as of late, there are far more underlying implications about the race for the White House that are now going to emerge.
On the Republican side, John McCain gains a huge advantage with gaining the ability to fully transfer his campaign into a national fundraising machine. The Republican National Committee had pledged about $25 million dollars in aiding McCain as best as legally possible. The limits of campaign fundraising arise from the reform act called the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (BCRA) that colloquially bears his name, McCain-Feingold. In any case, John McCain can now trounce around the wealthiest and most conservative parts of the country gaining money and support for his crusade against the left. The left is still in a horse race for their own nomination. Clinton is not finished at all, as I previously stated. She knows she will lose the Mississippi Primary on March 11th so her best bet would be to go straight to Pennsylvania. The Pennsylvania Primary is on Tuesday April 22nd and in my opinion, will go for Clinton. Ohio and Pennsylvania are very similar states. They all have a blue collar, rust belt state mentality. Clinton trounced Obama with a 10 point win in Ohio and one of Clinton’s biggest surrogates, Pennsylvania’s Governor Ed Rendell, is already talking her up in the Keystone State. She needs to keep a consistent message with the citizens of Pennsylvania because it obviously worked in Ohio. If Clinton were smart she would focus all of her campaign war chest on two states, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, where I think she can win. In any case, I think that neither Democratic candidate can win the party’s nomination with the outright 2025 delegates. It will ultimately come down to the 700 or so super delegates designed by the Democratic Party to be, by definition, above the elected delegate. For the first time in 30 years a nominating convention may actually be exciting to watch.
There are two outcomes for the Democratic Party if there is a brokered convention, which I ultimately believe there will be. Either the fight is so vicious that the party is fractured and the Democrats, once again manage to emerge with defeat from the jaws of victory, or, on the contrary, a ticket could be devised that would be an ‘all-star’ ticket. I believe this is highly unlikely due to the pompousness of both candidates and how vicious their campaigns have been toward each other thus far. The winner ultimately could be John McCain and the Republicans. The best thing he can do is raise as much money as he can because when the Democrats reorient themselves after these many months of confusion, they will attack incessantly and unmercifully.

Did Wisconsin Matter?

noreply@blogger.com (Jay R. Hagerman) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 13:38:00 +0000

Did Wisconsin Matter?
By Jay R. Hagerman
Thursday February 28, 2008

On Tuesday February 19th the states of Wisconsin and Washington divvied their delegates based on the turnout. Despite frigid temperatures in Wisconsin, the voters turned out in good numbers with over 1.5 million votes cast. The winners were Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, as I predicted in the last article. The question remains; did Wisconsin matter? There is a dual answer, so yes and no. Of course Wisconsin’s sheer delegate count definitely matters. However, in the long run of this campaign, Wisconsin has no significance.
In the Democratic primaries, the Clinton campaign did not blink after losing to Obama in Wisconsin. She is campaigning heavily in the delegate rich states of Texas and Ohio. In her speech delivered in Ohio after the Wisconsin results were rendered, Clinton was preaching her economic policy to that state. Both Ohio and Pennsylvania have been suffering in the decline of population and the loss of jobs. Clinton’s economic policy entices blue collar voters and will give her an advantage over Obama because he is struggling in both of the March 4th states. Obama is down in the polls to Clinton, some polls claim by double digits. Obama gave a hearty oration to a vast crowd in Texas. He quoted John F. Kennedy, a leader he has been likened to, and once again preached about the need for hope in America. Recently, he has been questioned by the media about his use of rhetorical flourishes instead of talking about policy issues. Obama’s speech from Texas had more policy in it, showing the adaptability of his campaign. If Texas or Ohio votes for Obama Clinton is as good as finished. I don’t think she will lose either state, but Ohio will be the closer of the two. With her “firewall” of Texas and Ohio, Clinton will not be out of the race. In fact, she may emerge as the front runner again on the morning of March 5th.
The situation is quite different on the Republican side. John McCain is the heir apparent to the nomination of his party. He readily won the vote in Wisconsin, as I predicted, by about 15 points. Many have been asking why Mike Huckabee is still in the race. I have three theories. First, Huckabee heartily believes that a Democrat will win in 2008 so he is setting himself up for a presidential run in 2012. Second, Huckabee is gaining recognition for a potential senate seat run against one of the two Democrats in his state, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. I don’t think this is completely his motivation, but may be an alternative to the presidency. Finally, instead of bowing out of a presidential run he may be staying in this race to gain momentum for his new occupation. Huckabee is no longer the Governor of Arkansas and now gains his income by giving speeches for profit. Mike may give off the illusion that he genuinely thinks he can win through a brokered convention. Well, I think he is genuinely wrong. With McCain having 942 of the 1191 needed delegates he is very strong. I think Huckabee may still win Texas and Mississippi. Apart from those states, I think McCain will be completely legitimized soon, gaining the needed delegates. Look for McCain’s campaign to take on a ‘general election’ style now directly challenging Clinton and Obama while being civil with Huckabee.
Wisconsin has not exposed any revelations in this primary season. It has only reinforced the importance of Texas and Ohio in the March 4th primaries. What has been hinted at and not discussed is the pending importance of the Pennsylvania primary on April 22nd. If Texas and Ohio lean toward Clinton, which I think they will, our state may see rallies and events popping up across the Keystone State’s landscape. If this is the case I think Pennsylvania goes to Clinton and McCain, but can be won by Obama only if Ohio is won by a large majority. That means his ‘rust belt state’ message works and he will run with it.

The Democratic Party Primary Stew

noreply@blogger.com (Ken Mott) — Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:20:00 +0000

Let's sort out the mess. To begin, we need to consider some basics. The Democratic National Committee(DNC) is the governing body which establishes the national convention and sets the rules for it. Further, the DNC determines the NUMBER of delegates allocated to each state. Party rules can be changed through meetings of the DNC and the refusal to seat state delegates can be appealed to the Credentials Committee at the convention. The plot thickens a bit because state legislatures determine the TIMING of their primaries/caucuses, and the legislatures of Michigan and Florida chose either to ignore or challenge the DNC's stipulation that state events could not be held prior to a certain time. That stipulation was designed to protect the traditional first-in-the-nation events held by Iowa and New Hampshire. The penalty for a breach of the prohibition, said the DNC, would be a refusal to seat any delegates so chosen. Senators Clinton and Obama, along with other contenders, understood the DNC's position. Nevertheless, half-baked primaries were held.

Now, both the states and the DNC refuse to fund "do-overs" which would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10 to $20 million per state. The DNC's financials are weak--in fact, weaker than its counterpart, the RNC, in large part because potential donors have been supporting the primary campaigns. Chairman Howard Dean is understandably reluctant to fund another primary go-around because he is mindful of the need to fill the general election campaign war chest. The reluctance of the two state governors, however, is harder to fathom because do-overs would likely generate as much or more revenue than the initial outlays, to say nothing of the indirect benefits which would accrue from the national attention.

The central problem is not whether the Democratic Party or either candidate would benefit from the seating of these state delegations, but rather the issue of popular representation. As things stand, the voters in two very large states are without a voice in the selection process. That fact raises both moral and legal issues.

It is beyond dispute that Michigan and Florida voters deserve to be heard. They did not disenfranchise themselves, and penalizing their state legislators for their misdeeds will not rectify the matter.

The legal questions are more complicated. One issue is whether state laws setting the time of primaries trump party rules designed to limit available calendar dates and punish offenders. Adding to the confusion is the fact that New Hampshire state law mandates a first-in-the nation primary, while the DNC has a long-standing rule prohibiting the selection of any delegates prior to the calendar year of the general election. Thus, the number of possible primary dates is finite.
A second, and more significant legal issue concerns due process and equal protection. In 1935, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that as private associations, political parties were legally free to discriminate on the basis of race by limiting participation in state primaries. But in Smith v. Allwright, in 1944, the high Court reversed itself, adopting a "state action" rationale. The 1944 court reasoned that although primaries technically served intra-party goals of choosing their own candidates, that selection process was nevertheless an integral part of the larger stream of activities which contributed to and culminated in the November general elections. As such, when private political party organizations held candidate selection events (caucuses, primaries) they were effectively engaging in procedures which were subject to constitutional prohibitions--just as if they were performed by the state government itself. Hence, the concept of "state action."

All of this points toward a constitutional denial of equal protection for voters in Michigan and Florida, a charge which voters could bring against their respective state legislatures and/or the DNC. The issue posed in this light would likely result in court rulings requiring do-overs at state expense.
Would such an effort and result really matter? In terms of the political outcome, perhaps not. In terms of assuring fairness, absolutely.

Space Security Conference Experience

noreply@blogger.com (Marc Fialkoff) — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 03:05:00 +0000

Recently, I went to a space security workshop hosted by the George Washington University Space Policy Institute. It was such an amazing experience to learn how much the world is involved in space policy and how there is more to space policy then just national defense and exploration.

At the workshop, I had the priveilege of listening to esteemed researchers in the field ranging from Dr. Clay Moltz, Dr. Xavier Pasco, as well as the organizer for the conference, Dr. John Logsdon, the director of the Space Policy institute at George Washington University. Each of these speakers explained how the world has different perspectives on how space should be utilized as well as different approaches to space policy.

It was truly a remarkable experience to be able to go to Washington and listen to these distingushed speakers and I hope to attend more events that study space policy and how the United States interacts with other global partners with regard to space policy.

Potomac Primary Analysis

noreply@blogger.com (Jay R. Hagerman) — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 15:58:00 +0000

Following the Super Tuesday elections, the Democrats had eight primary elections and the Republicans had six. The headline in many of Wednesday’s papers will be something to the effect of the media praising the Obama campaign for winning all of the primaries in Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, and the U.S. Virgin Islands on Saturday the 9th. He also won the Maine caucus the next day on Sunday February 10th and all of the “Chesapeake Primary” states Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. This undoubtedly is a large boost in delegates to the Obama campaign and makes him the front runner for the Democratic nomination. To be nominated the democratic candidate needs 2025 delegates. Right now Hilary Clinton has 1220 delegates compared to Obama’s 1275. This may seem like a futile differentiation, but this is the first time in the democratic race that Obama is ahead in the delegate count. Obama’s upswing in the polls can be attributed to his widespread upbeat message espousing hope. Hilary Clinton berated Obama for his lack of policy discussion and his over use of rhetorical flourishes. Clinton’s campaign has seen some shake-ups with Clinton’s campaign manager, Patti Solis Doyle, and deputy campaign manager, Mike Henry, resigning after the election results. What will be interesting to see is how Clinton reshapes her message going into the delegate rich primaries of Texas and Ohio on March 4th. A good indicator will be the Wisconsin open primary on February 19 where 3% of the democratic delegates will be up for grabs. On the Republican side, John McCain has done increasingly well primarily due to the unexpected drop out announcement by former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney. McCain has won the state of Washington over the weekend and on Tuesday swept the “Chesapeake Primary” states. The other contender, former Governor of Arkansas, Mike Huckabee, narrowly won the state of Louisiana (as I predicted) and also won Kansas despite McCain endorsements from former Kansas Senator and Presidential candidate, Bob Dole, and current Senator Sam Brownback. McCain has 843 of the needed 1191 delegates while Huckabee is mathematically out of the race with only 242 delegates. Two things can be learned from the Republican race. I predicted Kansas would go to McCain because of his heavy hitter endorsements. Huckabee narrowly won. This proves endorsements don’t mean much to voters, policy and character do. With Mitt Romney pledging to fight to the end on Tuesday and then dropping out on Thursday that proves that anything can happen in political races despite what pundits, and in this case even candidates, say. I predict that John McCain will win Wisconsin on February 19th and Ohio on March 4th. I will remain staunch in my prediction that Mike Huckabee will win Texas on March 4th and Mississippi on March 11th. Regardless of the primaries, I predict Mike Huckabee will be in the race for the long haul. However, I will go back on my prediction of last week that the Republican nominee will be decided last. In light of Mitt Romney’s abdication, and the delegate count being so close in the Democratic primaries, it seems clear that the Democratic nominee that will be the last chosen. To the Obama fans, you have momentum he must capitalize on it. To the Clinton supporters, you are not out of the race. You still have two out of every three super delegates leaning your way, the nomination may come down to how they vote. The Clinton’s are resourceful and I predict she will win the Texas primaries, putting her right back in the race. Either way, the Democratic contest will be the dictionary definition of a ‘political horse race’.

Hillary Clinton's unanticipated battle

noreply@blogger.com (Owen T. Carhart) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 20:46:00 +0000

Hi Everyone. My name is Owen and I am one of the Eisenhower Institutes Undergraduate Fellows and it is my pleasure to welcome you all to the newly created Eisenhower Institute Blog. The Eisenhower Institute Undergraduate Fellows: Jay Hagerman, Mark Fialkoff, Meg Goodwin, Mark Leno, Brett Jackson, and I will all be posting on the blog. Also, if you have a google account you are able to comment on this blog as much as you would like so please feel free to add your own input as well!

For the next few weeks we will be discussing the Primary Elections as they continue to excitedly unfold.
Today, I would particularly like to discuss the tumultuous events of last nights Potomac Primary and how they relate to future of the Clinton Campaign. While many of the broadcast news organizations have all but written Senator Clinton's obituary I have a much more logical approach to my analysis of the current situation.
While I was interning for Senator Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire I saw a very strong ground campaign with a healthy amount of money and a healthy attitude. It seems now that the problem with the Clinton Campaign has come down to her overall strategy from the beginning of the campaign which seems to be that she presumed an early victory in New Hampshire would carry her through to big wins on Super Tuesday.
That strategy seemed to be based on one well founded yet false assumption. The first of which was that Senator Obama would not be able to compete monetarily with the Clinton Campaign and thus would not be able to run strong campaigns on Super Tuesday in multiple states. We clearly see now that this assumption was false and has thus led to a stronger Obama Candidacy than was anticipated.
That being said, I would never discount the possibility of Hillary Clinton winning this primary. Her "firewall" of Ohio and Texas, are strong and currently in Ohio recent polls have her up at least 10 points. (See link below). I am very interested to see how the public perceives victories in Texas and Ohio.
Furthermore, there has also been wide speculation about the primary being decided right here in Pennsylvania. If this happens I think it is a great opportunity for Hillary Clinton. Governor Rendell has recently endorsed Senator Clinton and Pennsylvania's race is a closed primary which means only democrats and republicans can vote in it. This should spell trouble for Obama considering a very large portion of his support comes from independent voters voting in the democratic primary.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/oh/ohio_democratic_primary-263.html