It's Winter Break! Bwog will be moving in slow motion.

CU Democrats and Republicans Spar In Lerner

Bwog headed to Roone Cinema this evening ready for our daily dose of lively intellectual discourse, today's source being the first of three debates between the College Democrats and Republicans on issues pertinent to the upcoming election. We settled into our cushy seat surrounded by a vast sea of argyle sweaters and watched the games begin.

Tonight's debate, hosted by the CPU, focused on foreign policy and energy solutions. Each side was told to stick to their respective party platforms, even if their personal views differed. The Dems kicked off the night, using their precious 120 allotted seconds to discuss the various failings they found with the Bush Administration, calling the War in Iraq "stupid" and explaining the economic policies of the Administration as forming a collective "wrecking ball to the economy."

The Dems and Repubs engaged in some back-and-forth about Iraq, the Repubs noting that Obama's "cut and run" would lead to "defeat." Both sides acknowledged that Iranian possession of a nuclear weapon would be the "sum of all fears." The Dems and Repubs differed greatly on their views about the role of the U.N, the young freshman Republican in a finely tailored suit argued that the U.N is "quite simply, not working" while the increasingly flustered Dems called for the U.S to maintain its active role in the U.N and abide by U.N sanctions.

Discussion of energy inevitably lead to discussion of foreign oil which lead in turn to a discussion of this summer's Georgian Crisis. One Dem debater admitted that Russia's actions were both "over the top" and "pretty outrageous" but maintained that it was a time for level-headed talks with both sides, prompting the response from the Repubs that Russia was simply "the aggressor" in the Conflict.

The debate continued with its fair share of political cliches to warm us up for tomorrow's second presidential candidate debate -- McCain was said to "walk the walk, but not talk the talk." Bwog couldn't help but notice a fair amount of smirking at the Republicans' table, and mouthing-along and wild gesticulating between partners on the Democrats' side.

The show was over a little after 9 PM, at which point the Democrats had firmly established that McCain's record in the Senate is "not good" and the Republicans heralded their claim that our country "faces unprecedented challenges that we've never faced before."

Bwog gave all involved a hearty round of applause and left Lerner, our minds abuzz. The next College Dems vs Repubs debate will be October 15, followed by a watch party for an actual presidential debate.

Photo by Liz Naiden


Posted by FYI : #1 · reply · track
October 6, 2008 at 11:55 PM (from campus)
The Dems' live-blog of the debate:

[external link to blog.cudemocrats.com]
Posted by Any particular : #2 · reply · track
October 6, 2008 at 11:57 PM (from campus)
reason for the bottom line (date, comments, etc.) font to be exceptionally small?
Posted by cucr alum : #3 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 12:06 AM
"Each side was told to stick to their respective party platforms, even if their personal views differed."

The Republicans would have never agreed to that in the past. By arguing on the party platform, the Republicans are more likely to be perceived negatively by their overwhelmingly liberal peers. Arguing personal beliefs was always a good PR move because it showed that CU Republicans, just like the Dem peers, can come to their own political conclusions.

Posted by the whole point : #4 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 12:23 AM (from campus)
is that it was supposed to be a PRESIDENTIAL event that informed Columbia about what the candidates though. I think when there are issue based debates after the election, they will be based upon personal views.
Posted by well : #5 (in reply to #3) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 12:48 AM (from campus)
it also goes to show that many smart republicans are, at best, trying to pander to the Columbia audience, or at worst, embarrassed by their party's policies.

Meanwhile, the CU Dems need to stop using inflamed rhetoric and start being analytical, insightful, and factual as Joe Biden was at the VP debate. This year's rhetoric and last year's as well makes come off the way Sarah Palin did at the debate.
Posted by ^^^ : #6 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 12:52 AM (from campus)
^makes the CU Dems come off
Posted by Salz-fan : #7 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 1:25 AM (from campus)
I found it rather unfortunate that you failed to mention L. Salz by name :(
Posted by changes : #8 (in reply to #2) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 1:54 AM (from campus)
are afoot
Posted by debate : #9 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 2:12 AM (from campus)
Wait, did the Dems really say they wanted to eradicate Pakistan's nuclear weapons? I read that on their live-blog. If so, how exactly do they suggest that's going to happen?
Posted by well : #10 (in reply to #7) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 6:51 AM (from campus)
i hope you're not referring to the "freshman in a finely tailored suit" because if it was her, then she isn't a freshman. she's a sophomore.
Posted by Hah : #11 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 9:11 AM
I read the nuclear weapons thing with a dumbfounded expression. United States takes weapons. India launches cross border attack into Kashmir. Cue WWIII? Nice thinking CU Dems, I see you were paying attention in your poli-sci courses.
Posted by haha : #12 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 10:50 AM (from campus)
Did the Republicans REALLY argue over whether John McCain got a C or a C- on the Darfur scorecard? That's funny...
Posted by actually : #13 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 11:37 AM (from campus)
the freshman in a finely tailored suit was NOT lauren salz
Posted by I hate how.. : #14 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM
republicans laugh at their opponents during debates, like what is being said is an absurdity. All I can picture is an awkwardly smirking john mccain saying "that's not change we can believe in." f-u and your condescending smirks. you voted for bush, that alone is enough to discredit your right to be patronizing. 159k ppl lost jobs last month. nobody's laughing.
Posted by ummm : #15 (in reply to #5) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM
the joe biden being 'factual' and 'analytical' part is a joke right? he said so many false things (including the fact the diner he referenced as good ol joe had been closed for 15 yrs) and just got so many things wrong in that debate it was amazing:

[external link to heroesforhillary.wordpress.com]
Posted by lol : #16 (in reply to #15) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 4:29 PM (from campus)
I'm amazed that you were in a state of disbelief over what Biden said and not what Palin said ("no, I don't want to answer that question, but lets talk about energy!"). It's only ridiculous right-wing blogs like the one you cite that are suggesting Biden was dishonest. A closer look at those blogs will reveal that they are the ones being misleading and unclear over what Biden meant.

I've seen that link you posted and you're full of shit. Most of those "lies" you cite were either taken out of context, or further explained by Biden.

For example, for point #7 under Healthcare, Biden did acknowledge that Americans will get a $5000 tax credit, but that this will not offset the $12000 of health benefits that will now get taxed.

For point #9, CNN's fact-check show verified that the claim is true; Mckieran said that a surge similar to the one in Iraq would not work.

As for point #1, your website doesn't provide any detail of the vote in question, so you are completely out of line in citing that as a factual error. Biden said that "by Governor Palin's standard" of looking at tax-hike votes,

What about when Palin said she supported Civil Unions for homosexuals? Is that a lie too? That was much more explicit than any of the things you're citing.
Posted by ^^^ : #17 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 4:30 PM (from campus)
"by Governor Palin's standard" of looking at tax-hike votes, it would seem like Mccain was a tax-hiker too...
Posted by oh and : #18 (in reply to #15) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 4:34 PM (from campus)
if you actually watched the debate, Biden was also very clear about the fact that John mccain also voted against funding the troops if the bill had a time line in it. The point he was making is that Mccain's vote was political as well.
Posted by haha : #19 (in reply to #16) · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 6:14 PM
don't try to pass of bs spin from cnn as a fact check---McKiernan in fact did suggest a military + political surge would work [external link to www.iht.com]

cnn unsurprisingly ignores that Palin referred to the principles of the surge, which unsurprisingly also included a political surge that supported the anbar awakening in their 'factcheck'---so biden's blanket declaration that McKiernan said a 'surge' wouldn't work is nonsense

as for healthcare..you clearly have no idea what the heck you're talking about...first there is no 'tax' on 12000 dollars---12000 dollars is the estimate for how much healthcare costs--5000 dollars is the tax credit mccain is proposing for families

the tax is a separate thing where people already with employer paid health insurance will be taxed on their total income including the health insurance theyre getting covered--those increased taxes will then be offset by the upto 5000 dollar credit essentially lowering their taxes and easing healthcare costs

here's a good article to read to educate yourself on that [external link to www.thenewatlantis.com]

As for the first part---it was simple vote on a resolution regarding the expiration of the current tax cuts in 2011--obama and biden have used the fact mccain differently in the past as a key distinction which they say allied him to bush--its such an obvious lie i'm suprised you need support from it

otherwise, i like how you brush aside the other lies which were sourced

as for palin--she definitely lied or said inconsistent things too--unlike you i'm not an ignorant or blind partisan--the civil unions thing was an obvious one. She also avoided questions and seemed awkward at other times. The point isn't that she won the debate--the point is how hilarious it is to think biden was truthful and analytical in that debate. i'll even give you a more bi-partisan source that picked up on biden's deceptions [external link to voices.washingtonpost.com]
Posted by Salz-fan : #20 · reply · track
October 7, 2008 at 6:53 PM (from campus)
Don't worry, I'm completely aware of who L. Salz is
Name:
Email:
Reply to:

Describe this color in one lowercase word.
37 °F, Wintry Mix

Search

About Us

Bwog is compiled by the staff of The Blue and White, Columbia University's undergraduate magazine.

Contact Us

Please send tips to bwgossip@columbia.edu.

Questions or concerns? Email bweditors@columbia.edu.

Bwog is always looking for new writing talent. Email bwog@columbia.edu.

In Print

Our Favorite Comments

Generic Asshole: [read]
"Ew! How could you ever go to [popular Columbia spot]? It's overpriced and so fake! For REAL [service/product]..."
good analysis: [read]
"Dspar. But you know what, I think the real reason there was a crash is because there are far too few..."

Bwogroll

Technical

Our headlines are syndicated through Atom. This site is powered by the Publicate Content Management System, which is available for free.

Events

01/10/2009


Apply now and keep everyone updated on the artistic pulse of the Columbia campus! Postcrypt Art Gallery is looking for a dedicated webmaster to maintain the official Postcrypt site, www.postcrypt.info. Please e-mail jenny@postcrypt.info with your name, year and school, experience, and statement of interest.

The application deadline is January 10, 2009.


01/24/2009

Contact email: helvidius@columbia.edu

Publish that senior thesis! In its 20th year of publication, the Journal of Politics & Society is inviting submissions for its 2009 edition, which will be distributed in Barnes & Noble and Borders. Please email essays to helvidius@columbia.edu or visit http://www.helvedius.org
for more info. Deadline: January 24, 2009, all disciplines welcome.


01/26/2009

Contact email: cujh@columbia.edu

Positions on the editorial board are competitive, and choices are made by a committee of current editorial board members. To apply, send the following materials to cujh@columbia.edu with the subject line: Prospective Editor Application

Include your name, year, and majors and specializations;

A list of courses taken in the history department, or related courses relevant to the field of history (Philosophy of History; Historical Sociology, etc);

A writing sample of 5 to 7 pages, double-spaced, 12 point font dealing with a historical topic; it may be an excerpt from a larger paper, include a brief abstract if necessary;

An estimate of your availability for the Spring 2009 Semester; include other commitments and positions, and your ability to commit to the extensive reading and editing that a position on the editorial board requires.

The DEADLINE for all applications is JANUARY 26th, but we encourage you to prepare your application and send it right away. Email it with writing sample attached to: cujh@columbia.edu


02/01/2009

Contact email: periwynkle@gmail.com


Do you like to read and write about books, attend literary events/exhibitions, and frequent cafés and bookstores for readings by authors and poets? If you answered yes to any part of the above question, you should write for Spectator Books! My name is Yin Yin Lu, and I am the new Spectator A&E Books Editor. There are many benefits and inimitable opportunities for Books writers besides being able to see your name in print: interviewing all sorts of published writers, from debut novelists to Nobel Peace Prize winners, attending events at the NYPL, Symphony Space, book festivals, and museums for free, and getting free review copies of books before they are released! Last semester, for instance, I interviewed Lytton Smith and Karen Russell, both published graduates of the Columbia MFA program, attended a talk with critics James Wood and Daniel Mendelsohn at the NYPL, and heard Malcolm Gladwell speak at the New Yorker Festival.

Besides being exposed to these exciting opportunities, another reason you should write for Spectator Books is that it is not a long-term commitment - you can contribute as often or as little as you like. You can start your own column, write a recurring feature, or submit an article once every few weeks (or once the entire semester). Moreover, articles are flexible in terms of length and style, depending on whether they are features, reviews, or pieces for the Eye (Spectator's weekly arts and features magazine). Or you can post reviews of any length or style anytime you want on Spectacle, A&E's new and amazing blog.

There really are no obligations to being a Spec Books writer besides actually writing the articles that you want to. I will be sending e-mails with pitches and other information every week, and holding biweekly meetings at the Spec office, but those are not mandatory and are just an opportunity for me to assign pitches and meet my writers.

Completely enticed? Mildly interested? Still uncertain and would like more information? Whatever the case, e-mail me at periwynkle@gmail.com.


02/09/2009

Contact email: cufilmproductions@columbia.edu

Columbia Undergraduate Film Productions is launching our inaugural Production Season to write and produce original short films for our Film Festival!

CUFP Production Season will consist of intensive Screenwriters' Workshops and Directors' Workshops to offer you full creative and logistic support from your peers as you make your films on campus! We are looking for talented writers and directors who are passionate about film to create fresh, interesting material for our film festival.

Ideal candidates will be enthusiastic about film, dedicated to the workshop process, and excited to work on short films in a CUFP workshop setting. Workshops will be late Sunday afternoons and some Monday evenings.

The DEADLINE for Writers' Applications is Friday January 23.
The DEADLINE for Directors' Applications is Monday February 9

All Applicants: Send an e-mail with your name, e-mail, phone number, and school and class information to CUFPproductionseason@gmail.com. Please write a short personal statement (why are you interested in CUFP Production Season? How will you benefit from the workshop process?). Make sure to include all relevant experience with film and writing and/or directing.

**Writers: Please attach a screenwriting sample in Microsoft Word format. Writing sample should be maximum 5 pgs and should give us an idea of your narrative style and genre interest. It does not have to be the short film you will work on in workshop, but if it is not please include pitches/ideas for a short film you would like to workshop.


02/15/2009

Contact email: rhapsody@columbia.edu


Rhapsody in Blue, Columbia's urban affairs journal, having successfully, if belatedly gotten its first semester magazines in hand, is going to try again.

We're back to North America this semester. We need pitches from you. We want thoughtful, interesting, fun pieces that say something about cities. What are you interested in writing about? The first step is to send us a pitch--a paragraph about what you want to talk about, how will you do it? Pitches are due February 15. You'll hear from us if it's a go and drafts due a month later.

Old issues are on our website if you'd like to see more. Great opportunity to publish ideas from class, etc.

Send an email by us with any questions. Our FIRST MEETING for anyone interested in learning more about writing, editing, web or layout will be Wed, JAN 28, at 7:30, Broadway Piano Lounge. Also stay tuned for the study abroad blog, which should be going somewhere this semester. Let us know if you're interested in that as well.


01/6/2010

Contact email: bwog@columbia.edu

Email your event ads to bwog@columbia.edu.


Lost and Found

Lost (or found) an item? Email bwog@columbia.edu.