La revolución nunca morirá

They eat their young -- again.

If "Help" is at the grave marker's base, it's too late

Should we call it, yet?

The buzzards are circling over the campaigns of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Each has had to give the axe (undoubtedly with pressure and empathy) to campaign insiders who each could stand some lip-replacement surgery.

Name-calling, back-biting, knockdown, drag-out, pastor-run-amok campaign battles are a sight to see. It’s probably even nicer to see on someone else’s pay-per-view, which is exactly what Sen. John McCain decided to do this weekend by visiting Iraq; hide and watch.

It’s time to practice a little “good ol’ boy” diplomacy, while the Democratic youngsters play nasty politics. Let their underlings implode and St. Juan de Arizona will try to establish some “street cred” across the globe.

Time-out for a tiny Texas two-step

McCain’s endorsement from Pres. Bush (which was preceded with a little jig while waiting for McCain’s morning Geritol to kick in), was merely the pilot episode of how the Republicans will run the election circus.

Gramps is playing the “presumptive Republican candidate” role to the hilt. He has months to develop the patriarchal persona the GOP will demand when and if “an incident” occurs. If you want to know what “an incident” is, read the earlier blogs, dammit.

Oh, all right, “an incident” is what Republicans need to actually pull off a victory in the outside chance that no Floridian goblins are trusted with vote-counting duties.

Something as trivial as U.S. troop movement out of Iraq just when Latin American countries (one of them our ally) are posturing to blow each other to hell, for instance, wouldn’t hurt McCain — the soldier.

Anybody up for dominoes?

As if McCain’s goodwill mission isn’t enough to build conspiracy theories on, Bear Stearns crumbles and sells to JP Morgan for a pittance. Some financial pros think it could result in a downward-zooming domestic calamity, with other banks following suit.

Now that’s being in the right place at the right time, Sen. McCain. Being elsewhere — any elsewhere — when an economy teeters is wise if you’re a candidate who doesn’t need to fight for his next meal like Clinton and Obama.

Two pigeons hit with two arrows from one bow

Obama, Clinton ride McCain’s mechanical bull

Sen. John McCain should be yee-hawin’ it up in Texas this week. Not only will he almost certainly nail down the Republican slot for Election ’08, but he’s gaining rock star status with the media following last week’s gaffe by The New York Times.

The Times’ McCain/Iseman blunder is causing a rippling effect throughout the legions of hangers-on press corps. The Times sex scandal failed to make Sen. McCain’s hands tremble and nobody is accusing the relic of being either a philanderer or a stud.

Sen. Clinton, on the other hand, still faces months of facetious taunts and jeers about a certain “blue dress” and “the cigar incident” should she get green-lighted to the Democratic National Convention. The conservative blog-o-sphere will chant, “Lewinsky, Jones and Flowers,” all the way to Denver.

The biggest problem facing Sen. McCain in the short stretch is whether or not he is considered a “natural-born citizen” because he was born in the Panama Canal Zone. It isn’t much of a thorn at that, but is merely another red herring put out by his well-tooled war room.

Most reporters and editors are now too terrified to question anything in the old war horse’s past, including whether he is legally eligible to be president. Another scandal leaked, another scandal squashed in a hurry (at least among the journalists catching a ride on Sen. McCain’s bus).

It hardly matters which candidate takes the biggest slice of the Democratic pie this week. The Republican corner is chomping at the bit for the Dems’ winner to assail St. Juan de Arizona’s constitutional birthright to ascend the White House steps. Taking aim at his non-stateside natal origin would ultimately ring as unpatriotic.

Sen. Barack Obama’s failure to put his hand over his heart during the National Anthem, or to wear a U.S. flag pin on his lapel, already makes him a moving target as a “non-patriot,” should he get the party nod.

Other red states are already using his middle name when they talk about Sen. Obama, alluding that he is anti-Semitic.

Gilley’s, no place for weak stomachs

And as if he doesn’t have enough Right Wing momentum, Sen. McCain got help this week on the international scene. Fidel Castro resigned and passed the torch to younger brother Raul. Sen. Obama said he would meet with the new Cuban president with no pre-conditions, which set off a flurry of rhetorical sniping from Castro’s U.S. counterpart, Pres. “W.”

Brushing such redundant issues as sex and patriotism aside, Sen. McCain received another push with Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad dropping by Baghdad for a neighborly meet and greet.

This comes during the same weekend (although they swear it’s only a coincidence) that Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, happened to drop by Iran’s once-mortal enemy’s pad for tea and crumpets. Can you feel the love?

What will the Republican voters in Texas do this week with Sen. McCain’s bid essentially set in stone? They’ll do what every Lone Star Republican worth her/his (mostly “his”) weight in crude oil would do; they’ll vote in the Democratic primary. They’ll do so to ensure Sen. McCain’s opponent will be the one THEY want to see burned by “the rocket’s red glare.”

After all, why waste one of your lifelines on Mike Huckabee or Ron Paul when you can tailor the ultimate ballot in the prehistoric guy’s favor?

How much bang do you expect for a buck, kid?

N.Y. Times fails to pop McCain's balloon.

The New York Times shot its credibility in the foot with the story about Sen. John McCain and his suspected secret love lobbyist, Vicki Iseman.


McCain clearly gained the upper hand in strategy with this failed attempt at integrity assassination. Several things happened to McCain's advantage. One, the Times is now on notice to be extremely cautious with its reporting practices. They screwed up by focusing the story on the sex angle, rather than the more important lobbyist favor-pandering aspect.


The story, which was most likely leaked by McCain's own cronies, sweeps aside the potential for future negative campaigning by the Democratic survivor, whoever that will be, especially if any such negativity is generated by the Times staff.


Suspicion will loom ominously over any of the iconic paper's reportage that involves McCain's financial and/or sexual exploits. Even if scandals exist in Republican Land, they can't be exposed by the Times for fear the paper will appear to have old score to settle with old guys. It's too late to save face now, though. The editor should have tossed caution to the wind on this one by calling in Jayson Blair. At least then they'd have a scapegoat.


If an actual sex dalliance ever was scandal-sheet worthy, McCain is now clear to brush it aside. Ink has clouded the water. It's inconceivable that he will reach the porn star status that Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton achieved with Monica, but then again, that's not the image McCain wants to project.


The Times put the kibosh on criticism directed at McCain's moral standing, whether perceived or real; essentially creating a GOP martyr. The rush to scoop the New Republic, who tried to scoop the Times, who tried to scoop the New Republic, omitted two basic news imperatives; attributable sourcing and sound editorial judgment.


The next major newspaper to accuse McCain of impropriety had better have 8" x 10" glossies, a YouTube video and/or DNA evidence before committing their publication to the bottom of the proverbial bird cage.


Any accusations of courting financial deal makers (or under-the-sheet-tussles with blonde lobbyists) will be viewed by voters as desperate liberal media mudslinging. Practically every potential voter in dread of negative campaigning will reject future slams against St. John de Arizona.


Most likely, to survive in the elections coverage mix, the Times will now direct its focus on Obama slamming, much as McCain has already announced he will do. What a frightening concept; tag-team headline writing between liberal media and the conservative candidate (Huckabee is only a red herring).


Hillary's recent tirade against Obama for his mailers proved to be a big audience turn-off in Ohio -- and blue collar workers in Ohio take that crap personally. By lambasting the kid from Chicago, who consequently appeared surprised at her verbal meltdown, Hillary all but tossed the "youth-mallows" and the super-duper delegates into Obama's already raging bonfire.


It's merely a matter of months before we hear a loud sizzle and pop in the youth vote. College-age voters don't have the stamina or attention span to survive the months of confusing ads, issues twisting and name calling that lies ahead. They will become desensitized and disenfranchised before summer's end, which ultimately will benefit McCain.


The Times all but guaranteed buku million-dollar investments in the 'Nam vet's war chest. By the time mainstream evaluation of the old soldier melds with the "blogzone" rhetoric of ultracon supporters, McCain will be palming the White House Bible with a loud rendition of "I do solemnly swear...."


It appears I may have to publish one big, fat "I told you so" on Wednesday, Nov. 5.

With Chelsea in the water, whose pond is this?

Chelsea Clinton could be force among college voters

In an all out war to become the leader of the known world, a candidate needs to pull out every available weapon and toss concerns about casualties to the sidelines.

Most candidates have paraded their children on stage, but understandably keep them off limits to the media and the voting public.

What’s funny is that, for the first time since the elections of the last millennium, the youth vote is deemed important. The problem with chasing young voters is that it’s difficult to measure which candidate, er, celebrity they deem important enough to trust.

Barack Obama whipped out the heavy artillery early with endorsements from Oprah Winfrey, Will.i.am and Fall Out Boy.

It’s barely worth noticing that John McCain has pulled a combination of geezer muscle and star power by gaining endorsements from Arnold Schwarzenegger, Sylvester Stallone and Tom Selleck. It hardly matters who supports McCain as long as “W” gives him the thumbs up.

But Hillary Clinton counter punched her co-frontrunner with such backers as Barbra Streisand, Magic Johnson, 50 Cent and Jerry Springer.

In a battle for the youth vote, all of the top candidates have courted some pop icon or another.

With Obama holding an edge in the “big-gun friends of Dems” category, it’s obviously time for Hillary to unleash her own firepower — her daughter Chelsea Clinton.

That’s right, Chelsea. The 28-year-old Clinton has been drafted into the ranks of family politics and is saying “aloha” at college campuses in Obama’s backyard in Hawaii.

Of course, this isn’t Chelsea’s first foray into the battle zone. She’s already been on the campaign trail during this rotation, but has been mostly silent. In fact, mom and dad’s former hip ornament has even made national headlines without speaking a word.

MSNBC reporter David Shuster was indefinitely suspended after suggesting that Chelsea was being “pimped out” by her parents. Shuster single-handedly made Chelsea a martyr and elevated her celebrity status with his unkind remarks.

One might think Chelsea isn’t a major force in the battle to get mom elected. Some have been critical that she’s too soft spoken. But this may play well among college students who are sitting on the fence.

A little soft touch might be welcomed after the barrage of harsh negative campaigning we’ve already grown accustomed to in this race.

Chelsea might draw empathy from the college crowds who’ve watched her grow up in her parents’ shadows.

The “aww” factor may resonate among young voters more than celebrity endorsements. Chelsea could bring both weapons to the battle ground, youth and name recognition.

The bridge gets harder to cross

Today, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger confirmed what he's already threatened; cuts in education and health care for the poor.

I consider it a great source of pride to have the leader of our student government treat me and my assistants with disrespect. It lets me know that we’ve touched a sore spot.

We ripped the scab off the wound with our scathing editorial addressing our Associated Students, Inc. silence during the announcement of this current budget crisis at the Cal State University Board of Trustees meeting. Simply put, Cal State Long Beach's ASI was a no show, even though they had the closest proximity.

ASI reps from Chico, Stanislaus, San Diego and other CSUs made the trip and voiced their objections, but our ASI apparently couldn't find its own backyard.

It was their responsibility, not only to their constituents at The Beach, but for students throughout the state. After all, the most controversial item on the agenda was Schwarzenegger’s budget cuts to the CSU and University of California systems.

My assistant editor, Simon Barta, made multiple conscientious attempts to elicit comments from ASI President Mark Andrews. These attempts went ignored. Barta was trying to get the most accurate information available.

What amounts to even less than "no comment" was the best he received from Andrews. I surmised Barta, a fellow student, must not be at the right frat party to be deemed worthy of common courtesy.

I wonder how many other CSULB students Andrews ignores or treats with disrespect. My recent guess is approximately 34,000. If I gambled I'd start an office pool.

Not one returned phone call or e-mail from a student-funded BlackBerry; another situation when ASI felt they owed nothing in the way of explanation to our student body.

Rather than issuing a statement to the Daily Forty-Niner, Andrews chose to publish an opinion piece in the Union newspaper, assailing our editorials supporting community college students and chastising ASI's lack of involvement in the budget emergency.

That’s like a supermarket reader writing to the Penny Saver about an opinion they read in The New York Times. My advice would be to write to the original publication.

To do otherwise means the author's convictions carry an unwieldy stench of cowardice. It reduces his/her commentary to mere back door sniping, but I suppose that's par for the course with this ASI.

As if to validate his middle-school, popularity contest "right to office," Andrews relayed a third-person message to me through Super Fan Jo-Ryan Salazar that I was a “whiner” and the Daily Forty-Niner is nothing more than a “tabloid.”

That’s the typical name calling and childishness we’ve grown accustomed to at our “tabloid” from many in our student government. It seems as if most mumbled when they took their oaths of office.

I claim ownership for being “whiny” on behalf of 35,000-plus students. Our elected leaders aren’t doing it.

If anything screams for student representation (insert whining here), it should be about the 10 percent cuts to the CSU being passed along to students in the form of tuition increases well into the next decade.

The presidents of our university and our student government (insert tabloid-like scandal here) should be leading the charge to protect one of the largest high school graduating classes in California history.

With forced admission caps already in place, large numbers of these high school grads will be deprived of access to our university.

They should be speaking in public for thousands of community college transfer students (insert more whining) who have been busting their humps the past few years to get here, only to be denied when they think their time has finally arrived to cross the university bridge.

Not only is Schwarzenegger’s plan to heap another burden on the backs of public education, it’s a direct violation of the guaranteed growth funding promised in the Higher Education Compact that CSU Chancellor Charles, UC President Dynes and the Educ-Hater illegitimately signed in 2004.

Why wouldn’t our elected representatives take a proactive stand by voicing our concerns? They are ASI, right? I'm also a CSULB student, so "I am ASI," right? Somewhere in the ASI title is “associated” and somewhere else is “students.”

But the part of the political nomenclature our reps are focused on is the “Inc.” Much like the old mafia group, Murder, Inc., our student leaders seem incapable of making important decisions on their own. They simply wait for a contract hit from some capo di tutti capo.

They prefer, it seems, to wait until the university president, the Board of Trustees, or the California State Student Association tells them how to group think. Rather than taking seriously their responsibilities (insert loud guffaw laughter) and spiriting the lead, our ASI takes orders.

ASI will invariably take a retro tail-between-the-legs stance against the tuition increases. They will probably try to appear as leaders (I can't wait to say "I told y'all so") by endorsing or initiating a signature collecting campaign to freeze tuitions, ahem.

The problem is, though, that this student-led initiative has been in the pipeline for several months and is picking up steam while our ASI awaits a command. This despite the fact that Students and Families for Tuition Relief Now posted our "whiny, tabloid" articles on this topic in November.

While our ASI might plan on making a grandiose announcement of their objection to this wallet attack in a week or so, more than 430,000 signatures are needed by mid-April to get the initiative on the ballot.

Consider that need with the availability of approximately 450,000 currently enrolled student signatures in the CSU system, and it becomes a mathematical urgency to start earlier. But our ASI needs to be safely led by their collective noses to represent us.

Many political pundits have suggested the only way Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain can win the election is if we have another tragic event like 9/11.

A similar metaphor could probably be applied to our current ASI leadership, which is likely saving their group announcement to “lead” us against tuition increases in anticipation of upcoming spring elections — or spring re-elections for some. With crisis comes opportunity.

It’s in the best interest of students at CSULB to reject any false springtime campaign claim that so-and-so led the way in a fight to freeze tuitions. That would be like them professing they put the fragrance in spring flowers. Waiting for permission to be an activist is following, not leading.

When Andrews and ASI finally take a position, it will be that of reactionary, self-serving spectators; not as true leaders. Pity.

A train wreck in the making

The Democratic Party better watch its proverbial ass in the next few months. The ongoing fight for delegates between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama might hurt both of their chances to occupy the throne.

As many youth engage in their first presidential election (an estimated 17 percent of Cal State Long Beach students voted on Super Tuesday), this voting block leans toward a Democrat. An atmosphere of confusion is needed to draw youth away from the donkey ticket.

With the Republican nod going to John McCain -- due to Mitt Romney’s hastened exit from the race -- President Bush all but told conservatives the campaign focus will be on the war in Iraq. The ultimate conservative goal is to maintain defense spending and investment in the war on terrorism.

The McCain endorsement will piss off the ultra-conservative evangelical backers for Mike Huckabee. Bush’s recommendation is already reverberating in the ranks of neo-con youth voters who will be left to choose between a lesser of two evils; a Democrat or a rebel.

Many to the religious right don’t approve of McCain’s perceived wishy-washiness on Roe v. Wade, which sways the conservative ideology in many southern states to Huckabee’s camp.

Two strategies are implied with Bush’s early backing of McCain. The first is to present a clear-cut candidate so they can focus on campaign strategies earlier. The fact is, Republicans are in trouble and they need the extra time to circle the wagons on key issues.

Secondly, by announcing an ultimate candidate early, the elephants can kick back and watch the donkeys tear each other apart. As Obama and Clinton rip into each other, Republicans will cut and paste selected miscues in their presentations to be used against them at a later debate.

Even though we got an early jump on the election procedure, time is still of the essence. To mount formidable slash and burn attacks, Republicans need this added time element to let the donkeys make asses of themselves.

By allowing the Democrats the extended opportunity to implode, the Republicans stand their best chance of throwing either juggernaut off the tracks.