Who cares? Does anyone mind if the rules of the Senate are changed? Will it actually have an impact on you, the student reading this in Larson Complex or the professor glancing at the only part of the paper that talks about anything real? No impact on me, I’m in support of the majority. The question that should be floating around in your head is, will I always be in the majority?

It’s been about six years since I worked as a U.S. Senate Page. Imagine my excitement, a child of political thought, working in the most powerful place in the world. One of the most impressive people I met was Senator Robert Byrd, a Democrat from West Virginia. On March 1, he gave one of the most eloquent speeches I’ve ever heard on a proposed plan called the “nuclear option.” For most this would seem to be pointing at some sort of nuke war scenario. But what it is is just a term used to describe major changes to senate rules. Why change the rules?

Good question, and Republicans have 10 reasons to change the rules so they can win. I like to say it’s cheating to win. Since the speech, Senator Byrd, one of the wisest, most hardworking and compassionate public servants who ever served, has been dogged, attacked and personally insulted by people in the media, private citizens and even some of his fellow colleagues, all of which sit to the right of mainstream. Thank you, Sen. Byrd.

This issue goes beyond Sen. Byrd. It goes beyond right or left. It goes to the heart of what our nation stands for – majority rule, but with respect for minority rights. The U.S. Senate has a strong tradition of unlimited debate. It is the last place the minority or opposition can make their voices heard. With proposing the nuclear option to change the rules, Republican senators are looking for a quick fix for their own reasons, not your reasons. Limiting debate only gives strength to a majority of senators, not always representing a majority of the people. Without unlimited debate, the party with a slight voter advantage can disregard the rights of the other side. Majorities could rule without hindrance from minorities. Government is a slow and complicated process, but for the simple reason that when it comes to major things that could harm people, every part of that change must be explored and reviewed for the best interests of the people.

You must take care right now! The nuclear option takes away your voice, maybe not today, but someday when you are in the minority and the majority is pushing for a tyrannical change that impacts you. The right to hold it up and say no, not yet, is the only tool you have left to protect your freedoms and rights. The nuclear option is not correct.

Josh Horton is a registered democrat and president of the College Democrats.

From the Left: Dean can pull party back to left

The late Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) was respected for his convictions and his desire to work to give the power of government back to the people. One of the most famous quotes he ever said was “Sometime you have to start a fight to win one.” The truth is that even without this great man, the Democratic Party and the causes of the liberal/progressive movement can continue. The one man I know that can do this and will be in a position to change the course of politics for the next 50 years is former governor and Democratic Presidential Nominee Howard Dean.

Most on the right will try to claim that Dean is too liberal for American politics, that he will not be able to gain the support of conservative democrats and encourage enough support among the party to be effective. Forget all the bull. Dean is the best change that the Democratic Party has to regaining its basic image: the party of the people, the party of protection, freedom, opportunity and community.

During the Iowa Caucus, Dean opened up and talked like a true democrat, never bending to appease the right side of the party. The failure of democrats has been to move to the right, never standing our ground. Dean, with strong Wellstone-like dedication, stood on the left and pulled the focus of many issues back to the correct side, the left side. Even though he didn’t win, John Kerry and John Edwards echoed Dean’s politics.

Dean brings a few things to the table that the party needs to become whole again. He brings a national reputation, good or bad; people have heard of him. People outside of the party will identify him as a leader of the party.

The second thing that he brings is an expertise in fundraising online that no one else can claim, democrat or republican.

The third and most important thing that he brings is a vision to pull the party back to the left side of politics. The truth is that the right has dominated politics in America for many years. In fact, there has been no middle since most democrats have been trying to play to the right. With Dean, the party and nation can be assured that there will be a true middle, because democrats will again become the alternative to strict politics of justice for the few and unequal and an opportunity only for those most deserving.

Do I think Howard Dean is the savior of the Democratic Party? Not at all, but he is the next in the line of those politicians who speak with conviction, who truly believe that the best of people can be realized when we work as a community. He is a fresh start and ready for the challenges of starting a fight. With Howard Dean at the helm, I know that we can begin to win the fight.

Josh Horton is a registered democrat and president of the College Democrats.

From the Right: Dean won’t help democrats win

As a good republican, I celebrate every Feb. 12th. On this day in 1809, Abraham Lincoln, our first republican president, was born in Kentucky. But this year, republicans had an additional reason to celebrate Feb. 12th. As republicans toasted our success in the 2004 elections, democrats continued their downward spiral of self-destruction: they elected Howard Dean to be chairman of the Democratic National Committee.

Yes, that Howard Dean. The Howard Dean who, as governor of Vermont, made his state the first to accept homosexual “civil unions.” The Howard Dean who was rejected by mainstream Democratic Party activists because he was “too extreme.” The Howard Dean who seemed on his way to being the 2004 democratic nominee for president until he seemed to lose his mind in a speech on the night of the Iowa Caucuses. Democrats lost the 2004 elections because voters felt they were weak on terrorism and out of touch with traditional values. Selecting the pro-civil unions, anti-Iraq War former governor of Vermont to be the chairman of the Democratic National Committee is an unusual response.

As chairman of the Democratic National Committee, Gov. Dean will play an important role in retooling the Democratic Party for 2006 and 2008. He will oversee organization of the party, development of grassroots support and fundraising efforts. He will play an important part in shaping the message of the Democratic Party and will be one of the principle spokesmen for his party.

Dean’s supporters believe that his outspokenness and extremism are just what the democrats need. They believe that the democrats lost because they failed to present a coherent alternative to the republicans. When Dean declares that he “hates Republicans and all that they stand for,” these people cheer. Under this reasoning, a move toward liberal extremism will energize the democratic base and demonstrate to voters that the democrats are a party of principle.

Frankly, this does not make sense. In a nation where presidential elections are won and lost in a dozen battleground states and are determined by a handful of independent “undecided voters,” becoming more combative and more extreme seems like a good way to alienate the middle. Sure, you will energize your liberal base; but these liberals were voting for the democrats anyway.

I find myself in the awkward position of agreeing with Bill Clinton. On Thursday, Clinton was the featured speaker at a party for outgoing party chairman Terry McAuliffe. Though he was careful not to condemn Dean or the party’s leftward shift, Clinton patiently lectured the democrats on the lessons of the 1990s. Clinton didn’t win by moving to the left and “energizing the base.” He won by ruling from the center and appealing to moderate voters. If the democrats are interested in occupying the White House in the near future, they might want to consider Clinton’s advice. But if they choose to abandon the former president and follow the former governor of Vermont, good for them. I won’t complain.

Tony Venhuizen is a registered republican and a student representative with the Board of Regents.

For the last four years America’s foreign policy has been the focus of the White House. Dealing with terrorism worldwide, ousting Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, defying the United Nations’ recommendations and abusing the support of longtime allies, the Bush White House has done everything it could to destroy the image of America in the eyes of all nations.

For nearly 80 years, we were the guardians of the Free World. We set standards of peace and unity. We created world bodies to deal with conflict before they erupted. We supported the creation of the Geneva Convention in order to define unjustified action against people and prisoners during wartime. We were not always the most popular, but we were the most respected.

Condoleezza Rice is one of the most qualified people for the position of Secretary of State. But the problem with her nomination is that she is too close to the Bush White House. The Secretary of State is one of the most important positions in the cabinet. In fact, during most of our nation’s history, it was the stepping stone to becoming president. The Secretary of State has always been a person who understood the world position on an action and tempered the White House’s position to fit what would be acceptable action. The Secretary of State is our nation’s top diplomat and as such must be able to balance world opinion and U.S. action. Yet Secretary Rice does not seem to be a person who is interested in balancing the two. She seems bent on doing exactly what the President wants 24/7, much like a house servant.

For our foreign policy to be successful, we must pick and choose our battles. The Secretary of State must have the freedom to oppose some actions by the White House. The foundation of our Constitution rests in its system of checks. No one person always knows what’s best all the time. We must support a system that allows open discourse. We must demand that our leaders challenge those accepted policies. We must demand that our Secretary of State not be a tool of the system.

Unfortunately, this is all Rice has been for President Bush during the last four years. During her time as National Security Advisor, we saw the worst terrorist attack on American soil. We saw little action taken to bring those most responsible to justice. We have seen her go along with a “Mickey Mouse” plan for Iraq. We have seen little in the way of increased protection at the borders or ports. We have seen her allow the Geneva Convention to be ignored; only giving ruthless nations a permission slip to do the same. We have seen her full-heartedly, without reservation, support actions that have led America down a dark path.

What impact will she have on the next four years as Secretary of State? There will be nothing different; she will just be a more prominent tool in Bush’s chaos.

Josh Horton is a registered democrat and president of the College Democrats.

Getting picked for a team as a child can be one of the best, or worst experiences anybody can have. Early on, we learn that we are picked for teams for a plethora of reasons.

The same thinking can be applied to the current presidential race. Who should John Kerry pick to run with him and help him win in November?

A national race is not exactly kickball, but allies for victory are important in both cases.

Jim Johnson, former top aide to Vice-President Walter Mondale and head of Kerry’s selection committee knows that their selection has to help Kerry overcome specific shortfalls that he has with swing voters.

Vice-President Al Gore had the problem of distancing himself from President Clinton, so he chose the top democratic critic of Clinton, Sen. Joseph Lieberman, as his running mate.

Even President Bush felt pressure from voters on the matter of his national and international experience. To quell attacks, he selected former Senator and Defense Secretary Dick Cheney. In Kerry’s case, his biggest shortfall is his regional exclusiveness to the Northeast.

Knowing this, logically, his running mate must give Kerry regional diversity as well as specific intentions to work with the republicans. I see three people as strong choices for Kerry’s running mate for the 2004 presidential race.

Option number one: Sen. John Edwards. Edwards is from North Carolina and is a self-made millionaire who is young and energetic. He comes from a Southern working class family, which allows Kerry to connect to working class America. John Edwards is a top choice of many democratic insiders as he made the second strongest showing among the candidates for the nomination earlier this year.

Option number two: Former Sen. Bob Kerrey. Kerrey comes from Nebraska, which is a republican state. He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran, governor and successful business man. Kerrey is one of the most respected politicians in Nebraska history. He brings a moderate view coming from a republican state and reaffirms John Kerry’s support of agriculture and the working class.

Option number three, my “wild card,” is Sen. John McCain. McCain is not the only republican to be mentioned as a possible candidate.

Former Defense Secretary William Cohen’s name has been mentioned as well. John McCain is the most progressive-leaning republican in the Senate. He comes from a state in the Southwest, which has a large Hispanic population. He is a decorated Vietnam War veteran. Selecting a republican like McCain to join the ticket is a strong move toward proving real intentions to work as a bipartisan leader.

There has been growing pressure for Kerry to select a running mate in May, others expect a choice no later than June 30th. No matter when, the timing has to be right, and the man, or woman, must be right for the job.

I have full confidence in John Kerry to pick a running mate on more than their ability, but also for their dedication to make America better for everyone, not just the elites.

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.

Justice is one of the founding principles of American politics and culture. We meet that end though democracy, equal rights and voice in government.

Unfortunately, the fatal flaw in all systems of government is that they are run by men. James Madison once said “If men were angels, there would be no need for laws much less for government.”

Case in point, Justice Antonin Scalia, Supreme Court Judge, personal friend of Vice President Dick Cheney and someone about to hear a case over sealed files from the Vice President’s Energy Task Force in 2001. Reality: Men are not angels and will always protect their interests and the interests of friends.

In 2001, the Vice President headed a task force that included major players in the energy industry to discuss an energy policy for the new White House.

One of the most well known members of this task force was the infamous Ken Lay, former Chairman of Enron. You probably know him best for royally screwing over investors and employees of the company and making off with millions of dollars after the dust settled. He is also a good friend of the President. In fact, Enron was the largest contributor to Bush in 2000, giving the campaign $500,000.

But I digress.

During this closed door task force, policy was formulated with advice from utility companies and oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy industries.

A ruling by a federal judge in 2002 ordered the documents to be released. Although heavily censored, they give the recommendation that the government should open more federal lands to oil, gas and coal development.

Fast-forward to early January 2004. The Supreme Court made the decision to hear Vice President Cheney’s appeal, based on the argument that Congress and the courts have no business making inquiries into the decision making power of the federal agencies and offices.

The issue is that executive privilege must be protected and that releasing the information weakens the executive authority.

Only three weeks later, Scalia, with his son and a son-in-law, traveled with Cheney to hunt in a private reserve in Louisiana. A request by Sierra Club has called into question Scalia’s impartiality in this case because the close relationship that Scalia has with the Vice President and the details of the trip.

So far Scalia has said that he would not step down because he does not believe that there is anything wrong with socializing with Cheney. He has also said that the trip had been planned before the court had agreed to hear it.

In any case, the situation is gray.

For the public, it’s a matter of how much we trust the White House. If we completely trust the actions that it took, then there is nothing wrong with allowing Scalia to hear the case.

But if there is doubt about White House action, then we must be insured that this case will be subjected to unbiased scrutiny. If its not, where’s the justice?

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.

One of my favorite movies of all time is “The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly.”

It’s a spaghetti western about three outlaws seeking a golden treasure hidden in a graveyard. None of the three trust each other.

Politics is similar. Some is good, some is bad, and it all can be ugly.

Last week the South Dakota Legislature wrapped up its 79th session. This week, Tony and I decided to give you a rundown of the good, bad and ugly, minus the gunfights.

The “Good”

Being the liberal democrat that I am I found that the passage of SB 182 as one of the best policy moves made by the legislature this year. The bill prohibited the use of capital punishment for juveniles.

It’s a great example of bipartisan work to respect an important human rights issue.

The other outstanding accomplishment of the legislature was the passage of SB 200, 201, and 216 which created a Science and Technology Authority, transferred funds to the new authority for the purchase of insurance for the Homestake Project, and transferred management over to the new authority.

This was a strongly bipartisan move by the legislature and one that will bring much needed research and development dollars to the state over the course of the next few years.

The “Bad”

Unnoticed by most, there was a bill, SB 94 that would have increased the state’s minimum wage in certain cases. That bill never left committee. It’s quite sad that the legislature didn’t push this issue more in light of the number of struggling families in South Dakota.

There was also HB 1289, my pick as the worst bill that didn’t make it. This bill would have declared certain non-marital unions invalid and precluded individuals in those unions from receiving certain benefits. It was written to invalidate civil unions.

I am glad it didn’t pass the committee, but I am disgusted that it was done for the wrong reason. It was voted down was because it would have hurt straight couples. It was not voted down because it would have hurt people.

The “Ugly”

The Governor’s plan to quell the demand for lower food tax was fulfilled in HB 1308. It will exempt the poorest families and individuals in South Dakota, but not everyone who needs it.

This issue is far from resolved as the Democratic Party will have enough signatures soon to put it on the ballot next November.

Finally I reach the most hotly debated bill this year, HB 1191, the ban on abortion.

I guarantee that there will be another version of this presented next year.

I don’t like to debate this issue because I believe it to be a moral issue, not a political one. HB 1191 was political in nature and in reality would have done little to end abortions in South Dakota.

Here’s a little insight into the parties that I learned during this session: Democrats make policies that regulate people’s public lives; Republicans make policies that regulate people’s private lives.

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.

Last month the American Family Association decided to run a poll on gay marriage. The AFA was going to use this poll as supporting evidence to push for a law defining marriage as between a man and a woman, halting any chance of gay marriage from becoming a reality.

Foolishly planned, once the URL of the polling site was noticed by the masses, the results from the poll actually strongly supported gay marriage. Quickly the AFA attacked those who had voted more than once and for those who had not voted honestly. Personally, they did it to themselves by trusting the power of the Internet to justify their cause and not hiring a credible polling firm.

Gay marriage has become a steaming issue in the last few years, but it’s finally boiling over this year as this election year makes everyone act a little crazy. Take George Bush for example. In his view this year should not be about the economy, massive job loss, and the occupation of Iraq, the War on Terror, the environment, social security, Medicare, or even student loans. No this year the big issue is on whether homosexuals should have the freedom to marry.

Yes, in the footsteps, or should I say sidesteps, of his father, Bush seems to be avoiding the real issues this election year for some good ol’ boy issues of government control of personal rights. It confuses me why the Republican Party wants to make the first amendment to the constitution that actually limits personal freedom; being that it is the party of individual responsibility and less government intrusion into people’s lives.

This amendment would define marriage as being between a man and a woman. Simple enough right? Well think about this; by creating such an amendment you make all homosexuals second class citizens by denying them the right to marry. Everyone knows about second class citizens. The history of the United States is full of them; many are still fighting to be full citizens.

Are we ready for gay marriage in America? Sadly, no, the majority of Americans have strange expectations and ideas of gays. People just don’t understand that they are people, wanting love, success and happiness just like everyone else.

Will there be an amendment? I’m not sure. It scares me that people would want to legislate over the personal choices of people. Government was founded to protect people’s rights to live how they choose, not to tell people how to live.

Right now the nation’s divorce rate is more than 50 percent and growing. We should be encouraging consenting adults that truly love each other to marry and not discouraging that important institution on a basis of fear and misunderstanding. I said it before and I’ll say it again, we should not be dividing ourselves because of difference, but we should be uniting on a basis of being human beings.

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.

I have good days and bad ones. The good days are when I see progressive liberal changes being made and open challenges to the status quo occurring. Progress of our nation depends on challenging the set rules.

My bad days are the days when I see our nation regress; when we blindly accept things as they are without question; or when conservative views of the world attack and persecute those who wish to make people think differently.

The most recent example of this was the incredible outcry from students over a recent article in last week’s Juice. Although the article was not at all R-rated, it’s an example of how some raise issues of morality and decency on the most insignificant things.

I find it interesting that we haven’t seen the same kind of outrage on recent charges of assault by SDSU Athletics Director Fred Oien on his wife. This in my mind seems to be a more important issue of morality than some silly, poorly written article on a subject that some consider taboo.

Should it have been printed? Sure. Should demands for censorship and media decency be accepted on the basis of political and social correctness? No way!

Decency in the media has been a major concern of the conservative forces in society. The belief is that if you remove anything that offends, harms or scares people from the media you will be doing people a favor. This is 100 percent bullshit. Sheltering people from the reality of society only breeds misunderstanding, which can only lead to bad things.

I reject the idea that there be rules of decency placed on the media. Here’s a question: what kinds of rules would be made? Who would make the rules?

Everyone can accept the idea that standards of morality and right were more conservative 100 years ago than they are today.

What do you think would have been the effect of those rules had the media been subjected to that kind of censorship? Issues like gay rights, suffrage, sex education and many other things would have never been openly discussed because they would have been deemed taboo and the status quo would have never changed. From that it would be safe to assume that some day our standard of morality might be too conservative for future generations. Our marketplace of ideas depends on everything being fair game and available to be talked about, that’s how injustice is fixed.

The students at SDSU are a very sheltered bunch. While being wrapped in a quilt of political correctness, many feel that certain things should be withheld from public forum. Why should we keep some topics from discussion and others available? Doesn’t that fly in the face of what the freedom of the press and speech were set up for?

Our media must be open and free to print and expose us to different things all the time. It must be allowed to challenge the status quo to make us better human beings by exposing us to ourselves.

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.

I recently read an article at Slate.com that talked about the Republican Party in 1994 and the Democratic Party in 2004. Tony and I have already talked about many of the candidates and their hope for success this political season. But I believe that we needed to take another look at the Democratic Party this year. Like a freight train, the Democratic Party is picking up the momentum and strength it needs to win big this fall.

Since the Iowa caucuses, all the talk has been about John Kerry. According to current independent polls, he is leading the President by several points outside the margin of error. Although the race to the convention is far from over, Kerry and the rest of the candidates are energizing democrats and making them believe that victory at all levels is truly possible if we want it.

The momentum behind the Democratic Party is not just from the presidential candidates, but from Bush himself. Many people absolutely detest of the policies of the Bush administration. These dressed-up policies have left a bad taste in the mouths of democrats, independents, and even many republicans. This impatience with Bush has galvanized the Democratic Party, from the far left to moderate and some right, to support anyone but Bush this fall.

1994 was a major year of political change. The Republican Party used the idea of fiscal responsibility to make major gains in the House and Senate. They attacked Clinton for escalating the deficit a few billion dollars and labeled democrats as tax and spenders. In 1996, the big issue was the Contract with America and the push for a balanced budget amendment. Republicans have used the fiscally responsible issue to sway voters. Except this year it seems that this issue fits better with the democrats. The deficit is projected to hit at least $500 billion dollars, a record amount of debt for this nation. So who are the real fiscal conservatives?

Three million people have lost their jobs since Bush became President, 43 million Americans are without healthcare, and a record surplus has turned into a record deficit. There is a high distrust of our President on issues of WMDs and his own military record. Housing, education, and veterans’ benefits are not being funded as promised by the “compassionate conservatives,” but in fact are facing major cut-backs to provide more funds for faith-based groups. People are being hurt everyday by these policies, while major contributors and supporters of the Bush Election Machine make out like kids at Christmas. The American people want a real paradigm shift, not a preservation of the status quo.

This is the year of the Democratic Party. They hold all the cards; the issues that matter will be addressed by democrats. I have heard many of my peers say that we should wait for 2008. I ask, “Why?” We can win, we will win and we must win. The issues that will be important this cycle are too important to trust to an inadequate administration and a lackey congress. This is the year of the Democrat.

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.

In just about four months South Dakota will elect someone to finish out the term of Rep. Bill Janklow. As soon as they win, they will need to have a staff in place ready to do the business of the state. I do not envy Stephanie Herseth or Larry Diedrich for the amount of work that lies ahead.

In one of the most interesting events in South Dakota politics, the upcoming replacement election for the open House of Representatives seat will most likely see the winning candidate stay in office until 2006.

Why do I say that?

Because it would be foolish to elect someone in June and replace them in November. South Dakotans understand the importance of allowing our representatives time to learn and grow in such an important position.

There are several important factors that will decide this race; money, visibility, and voter turnout. Of course the basics of any race are money, media and message.

Everyone knows that you need money to run any kind of campaign. You can expect that both the Republican and Democratic parties will be dumping money and volunteers into this state to make sure their respective candidates will win. As far as organization, Herseth has the clear advantage, having established several offices with staff already in place. She also has the advantage of knowing exactly what she must do to win.

Diedrich has never run in a statewide race. Due to the timing of his nomination, he is starting at a disadvantage on both time and preparation. Although those might seem to be huge factors to overcome, money can help even the playing field, and the Republican’s have plenty of it to dump into Larry Diedrich’s campaign.

Visibility will be a large factor in this race. Due to the shortness of the campaign, name recognition and visibility will be very important.

Clearly, Herseth has the advantage here, being that she just ran for the seat 15 months ago and did very well. In the next four months, Diedrich has a lot of area to cover, and although this is a disadvantage, it may not be quite as large as it appears.

First, he is a state senator, which puts him in a position of knowing a lot of key people all over the state. Although generally unknown to the masses, many influential and important locals probably know him.

The last factor will be voter turnout. South Dakota usually does well in this area. However, this is a primary and turnout is always lower than on that cold day in November.

This is probably where Diedrich has the advantage. Republicans are more likely to vote than Democrats, plain and simple.

However, due to the special circumstances of this election, I imagine that turnout will be higher than usual, but we will have to see.

It is already shaping up to be an election that should be closely watched. The only sure thing is, whoever is elected will have quite a mess to deal with when they get to Washington.

Reach Joshua Horton at tsyche@hotmail.com.