The Badger Herald

NEWS

Collegiate partisans tackle topics of day

AJ Maclean

Looking for a print version?
Simply choose ‘Print’ on your computer and a printer-friendly document will be generated.

Also by Yana Paskova:

Paul Ryan reintroduces Social Security privatization package in House (April 22, 2005)
Woman dies in apartment on Langdon (April 27, 2005)
Capitol hosts first 'State of the Tribes' address (March 9, 2005)
State to appoint Taser committee (February 24, 2005)
Assembly passes property tax freeze pushed by Republicans (February 18, 2005)

by Yana Paskova

Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Although the four student representatives at Tuesday’s College Democrats versus College Republicans session sat a few inches apart, their stance on hot-button issues set them miles apart.

Tuesday night’s meeting, organized by the Wisconsin Public Interest Research Group (WISPIRG), took place at the Bradley Residence Hall Social Basement while a moderator shot questions to the young politicos.

The University of Wisconsin student representatives, Chair of College Democrats Liz Sanger, Bill Anderson from the Green Flash Progressive Alliance, College Republicans member Chirag Shah, and Paul Heideman from Students for Nader, answered according to their respective viewpoints.

They tried to reach their student audience by discussing topics such as education, a possible military draft and women’s rights.

Anderson led the debate on education by labeling higher education a “basic human right” for all people regardless of their socio-economic status.

As Sanger joined the conversation, she eyed the room full of students and assured them Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry would increase funding to Pell Grants to ensure they keep up with rising tuition costs.

Shah added President Bush has already increased funding to education more than any other president in U.S. history because he believes it’s the backbone of a strong economy. He also said the Bush administration boosted the finances supporting Pell Grants.

However, Heideman argued a growing poverty rate necessitated the need for more money for Pell Grants. He then challenged Bush’s contribution to the economy by pointing out cuts to workers’ hours and wages.

Heideman also addressed the “racist” war on drugs under the current administration.

He said Nader would decriminalize marijuana-related offenses.

“[These offenders] hurt no one [by using marijuana] except possibly themselves, and that isn’t even entirely proven by medicine,” Heideman said.

Following suit from the presidential debates, the conversation turned to military topics.

“[America] shouldn’t invade any country that looks at us wrong,” Heideman said, and also told students that Nader did not support the war in Iraq or any resulting military draft: “No war means no draft.”

While Anderson and Sanger expressed Kerry’s and the Green Party’s David Cobb’s opposition to a draft, Shah turned the audience attention to Democrat Charles Rangel, N.Y., who recently introduced a bill to Congress to reinstate the military draft.

“When a bill is introduced out of spite … it becomes insulting to the process,” Shah said, referring to Sanger’s earlier comment that Rangel did not necessarily introduce the bill with the intention of voting for it.

The four students also appealed to their female peers by discussing women’s rights issues, such as abortion.

Shah said he would not mince words, and partial-birth abortion was “reprehensible for what is life.”

“Bush believes the life of the woman is very sacred and so are her decisions, which should come from a strong ethical code,” Shah said, adding the phrase “W” stood for women.

Sanger noted she was personally offended by the above phrase.

“Bush isn’t pro-life. He is pro-birth,” Sanger said. “He wants to get that baby out, but he’ll leave it in the dust once it’s born.”

However, Shah and Sanger’s closing statements agreed on one thing: students should decide what issues they value most and vote accordingly.

Feedback

Show all comments

Hide anonymous comments

Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 7:06am):

Thats supposed to read "Bill Anderson from the Green "/" (SLASH!) Progressive Alliance (Green Flash Progressive Alliance...that sounds really weird)

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 12:03pm):

How ironic - the only party with a "diverse" representative was the GOP. And it seems that Mr. Shah was a formidable debater, too. Nice work CRs!

Anonymous (October 20, 2004 @ 6:46pm):

I have to admit Mr. Shah was a pretty good, even though I disagree with his politics. He was definetly a lot better than Frank Harris, and also more outspoken in his conservative beliefs.

In many ways, isn't this the perfect case of the right practicing overt affirmative action to advance their cause? Even though genuine conservatives make up a tiny fraction of racial minorities in the US, the few that are truly conservative are very outspoke and the right makes a big point of putting them out in front. I also did find it a bit hypocritical that on one hand he stated his belief in outlawing abortion because he believes it was murder, but after the debate he was discussing his religious beliefs on nonviolence, and in regards to the war in Iraq justified it by saying "live and let live." Seems to be a double standard to me...

Anyways, nothing personal against Mr. Shah. I enjoyed debating him, and was particularily amused when he essentially called me an anarchist. I had talked about abolishing corporate personhood and democratizing the corporate structure, and he said what I was advocating was "basically anarchy." Score one for Anarchists!! hehe

Bill Anderson
Green Party rep at the debate.

Chirag K. Shah (October 21, 2004 @ 3:09am):

Unfortunately we did not get a chance to talk after the debate. I appreciate the kind words and extend the same to you regarding your vigor on the issues.

Nonetheless, I do have to take exception to your statements about Republicans and my religious convictions. Additionally, I feel that the statement about Frank Harris is out of line, especially in this forum.

I am affronted at the ignoble statement of referring to my presence in the debate as the "...perfect case of overt affirmative action." Simply because I am a minority, does that mean that I cannot have strong principles and that I should not voice them dynamically? I find it interesting that you talk about how many institutions are racist, but you are unable to see me as simply another voice for the conservative cause, but a charity case. If equality is the harmony that is ultimately sought, why must it be that the CRs conspired and tout me as a token minority? Why, in your mind, can it not be that I entered the debate based on robust, personal convictions? This, by the way, is the actual reason I was present last night.

As far as my religious convictions are concerned, I will put it simply; live and let live is my way of life. It extends to all life. To me, a baby (fetus) is a life. I feel that the mother is also a life and both should be respected and cherished. Moreover, regarding the war in Iraq, the potential for liberty and freedom for millions of people is something that I believe is worth fighting for. The Iraqi people have not had the chance to live lives of free will and our help will bestow upon them these basic human rights. No sir, this is not a hypocritical doctrine.

Furthermore, I would appreciate it if, in the future, you would address me personally with your views and not so blatantly in an open forum. If you disagree with public policy that I advocate, then certainly, this is a great place to do so. Nevertheless, when it becomes a matter of my credibility both politically and personally, please refer that to me in a more direct manner. It would be unfortunate if I were to have missed your "constructive" criticism.

Respectfully yours,

Chirag K. Shah
Member
College Republicans

Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 9:37pm):

Believe me, Shah, I am glad that conservatives make a point of putting minority voices out in front of their movement. I did not say I had a problem with it. I would only like it if they would acknowledge that it would be good for society as a whole to do the same! My comment was not intended to be negative towards you, only critical of the conservative movement's double standards on this matter.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 9:40pm):

...and might I add that your voice was a very powerful one. Of the three debates I have seen like this one, you were unquestionably the best representative from the College Republicans.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 21, 2004 @ 11:40pm):

Mr. Anderson (Matrix reference), being liberal and all is fine and dandy. However, accusing the Conservatives of lacking racial harmony is kinda hypocritical, don't ya think? I mean, when was the last time the Greens put up a minority candidate? When you worthlessley protest the WTO, how many minorities join you? Now, I understand there are like two of you across the country (roughly the same number of Milwaukee Brewer fans) who are part of the Green party, so there aren't many chances to find a minority Green. Sorry.

Anyway, Im a diehard Democrat. I would rather spend a winter in Moscow than vote for a Republican. Despite that, don't every question "Mr. Shah's" convictions and abilities to represent (though confused) his "party." And just because he is a minority (which is strange since there are like 2 billion Indians in the world), does not mean that the Republican party is tyring to use him as a toke. BELIEVE ME, he is ardent (though wrong) in what he says. Plus, he is like a really cool guy (again, though wrong).

Finally, always remember, What Can Brown Do For You?

JJ

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 12:35am):

Dear Mr. Bill Anderson. You need to realize that it is terribly presumptious and even arrogant for you to suggest that Mr. Shah's presence was a form of "affirmative action." Mr. Shah was sent because he is one of the most skilled debaters in the College Republicans. He is also very well versed in the issues.

Moreover, you seem to adopt a nearly paternalistic attitude towards "minorities," as you term them categorically. Let people speak for themselves and leave race out of it. I can't count the number of times you ridiculously called some societal aspect "racist."

By the way, were you tweedle-dee and the Nader rep. tweedle-dum? Or was it the other way around. You two were indistinguishible.

Yours,

Publius

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:08am):

Publius,

I agree with you whole heartedly that Mr. Shah is the best debater in the College Republicans!! As I already said, I have attended two other debates besides this one, each with different reps from the CRs, and Chirag was BY FAR the best. In hindsight, I suppose I shouldn't have said his case was a "perfect example" of this, but you understand my point...it was a rebuttal to the anyonomous Republican comment which was 2nd in this thread. I think you'd have a hard time denying that conservative minorities tend to be particularily outspoken and are often given special status within conservative circles. Alan Keyes in a perfect example of this, not to tar him personally because he is very intelligent and successful. I am only pointing out that the right doesn't always practice what it preaches. I guess it just didn't come out the right way when I initially said it. Many apologies.

Please don't take any of what I said personally. It was simply an expression of a political observation regarding the conservative movement.

I have much respect for Mr. Shah. He is a talented and extremely intelligent individual and should go far in life! I wish him the best of luck in his future endevours, weather they be in politics or elsewhere.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:12am):

To JJ,

FYI, the Green party has a higher percentage of elected minority officials than the Democrats! The Four Lakes Party is the second largest political party in Dane County, and we have the only elected African American on the city council. Don't try to tar us with this crap, that the Democrats are somehow more progressive than us...not even close. The Democratic Party is a massive graveyard of progressive social movements. See my oped which should be in the Daily Cardinal today (Friday)

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 9:39am):

"Mr. Anderson" (again, Matrix reference, it's just too perfect), what the heck are you talking about tweedle dum? When in my response did I claim the Democrats are more progressive than you caught in the 70's, drugs, sex, rock and roll hippys? OF COURSE you have a higher percentage of anything, there are only two of you!!! But, surely, if you are the party of the minority, the majority of minorities will vote for you, right? OH WAIT, NO!! If you truly believed in your causes, you would realize that the only way to govern is to...wait for it...WIN!!!!! Its not enough to be the second largest party in Dane County (and which party is the biggest?), you have to win something important to actually do anything important.

Now that the gloves are off, you presumptious hippy, I really like your comment about my party being a graveyard. I mean, you're right, the Democratic party is fading out of existence. Cant you see the rising tide of the Green party? I mean, look, they got a single county council person in DANE COUNTY!!! Granted, the Greens are polling at like .00001% (we assume this is Mr. Anderson and his imaginary friend) whereas Kerry is polling at 47% but the gap could close in the next 11 days. Give it a channce, man!

JJ

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 11:25am):

JJ,

You sir only demonstrate just how ignorant, uninformed, and unbelievably corrupt beyond reform the Democratic party is. The Four Lakes Green Party holds 4 seats on the city council including the campus/student district 8 (Austin King), 2 on the Dane county board, and 1 on the Madison School Board. We are also currently running 3 progressive candidates against conservative establishment Democrats- Sally Stix for Dane County DA against Brian Blanchard and his failed criminal injustice policies, Brian Pruka against Bob Ohlson and his non-action regarding electoral reform and the issuing of same-sex marriage liscences, and Tony Schultz for State Senate District 26 against Fred Risser and his failue to stand up and fight the right-wing in the state capital, even going so far as to side with it on several occasions. We also ran several races against right-wingers in the spring elections, where the Democrats failed to even field a candidate. We garnering about 47% of the vote in Mount Horeb for Steve Cowan's last-minute campaign for County Board against an incumbent right-winger, a seat which we intend to win next time around.

The Green Party has been the fastest growing political party in the United States for the last decade. We are Green & Growing, and we are not going away! I would ask that you stop your ridiculous slander against the Green Party because it is untrue and mean spirited.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:09pm):

Mr. Anderson (No Matrix reference this time),
Dont suppose to even have a clue as to what I do and do not know. No, I dont know much about Dane County, BECAUSE I DONT LIVE THERE!! However, you have named positions which, in the grand scheme of things, are not going to spur any kind of growth in the Green Party. I will continue to crticize the Green Party so long as the 1st Amendment says I have the right to free speach, or has your liberal mind forgotten that fact? So long as the Green party continues to try and disrupt the legitimacy of the Democratic Party, then I will continue to fight against the Green Party. Having read the positions of the Green Party, you guys are so limited in your focus. The Democrats are trying to win. You are trying to prove a point. You are failing. You cant prove any points or score any victories IF NO ONE HEARS YOU!!! The Green Party's actions, especially the indignation shown by Ralph Nader 4 years ago, has caused liberal minded individuals to turn their backs on you.

If, as you say, the Green Party is growing so rapidly, please name one of the 537 Federal Elected officials with a "G" next to their name. Please name one of the 50 Governors who is "Green and Growing". Please name a mayor of any of the top 50 cities in the USA that preferes green states rather than red or blue. Any Green party speakers of state legislators? How about Senate Pro-Tems? Hmm? Perhaps not.

Finally, dont ever question my knowledge of politics. You have no idea who I am. If you need proof that I know what Im talking about, go pay a visit to "Mr. Shah" and ask him about me.

JJ

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:10pm):

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:13pm):

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:31pm):

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Suffice it to say that your hatred of the Green Party is irrational and based on false beliefs about our level of support.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:36pm):

I'm not even going to dignify that with a response. Suffice it to say that your hatred of the Green Party is irrational and based on false beliefs about our level of support.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:41pm):

Mr. Anderson,
I dont care. In fact, I dont care who or what you are. You obviously are a self indulged, self centered, dork who naively thinks the Greens are, you know, worth a breath much less a second thought. I just wanted you to know that you dont mess with my friend, and dont every make assumptions 'cause he is a minority. He is twice as smart as you ever hope to be so just can it.

JJ

PS-GO CARDINALS!!!

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 2:43pm):

Mr. Shah=UPS

What Can Brown Do For You?

Anonymous (October 22, 2004 @ 7:22pm):

JJ,

I never "messed" with Chirag. I think I have already cleared this up. It was a rebutal to the anonymous Republican comment. I absolutely agree that Mr. Shah is very intelligent, though I don't see a need to compete over which one of us is smarter. You, sir, are just trying to be confrontational, as I never was.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (October 24, 2004 @ 2:55pm):

Having read all of these comments, I must say that Mr. Anderson, you sound like a jerk. I mean, whoever JJ is probably should not have been so harsh, but he has some good points and you act like you are the smartest person around. Perhaps you should loosen up on the arrogance (and JJ loosen up on the harsh comments) and listen to what other people have to say.

Anonymous (October 24, 2004 @ 3:01pm):

I agree! Mr. Anderson, lighten up or shut up!

Anonymous (October 28, 2004 @ 1:18pm):

I guess the Political Correctness Police have shown up. Too bad they won't tell us their names.

Bill Anderson

Anonymous (November 4, 2004 @ 10:43pm):

Bill Anderson, you are a cry baby.

Anonymous (November 7, 2004 @ 11:23pm):

waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahh

Right... that sounds like me. Thanks for the compliment ;-)

Those who resort to name-calling only demonstrate that their own arguements lack validity and substance.

Bill Anderson

Top Classified Ads (view all)

Place your classified ad online and have it show up here. Your ad will hit thousands of viewers a day!

DON'T READ ME! Too late. If you're reading this, guess how many other people are reading it. See... advertising in The Badger Herald does work!

Place a classified ad