City Council Chambers

Here is a quick run down of how City Council works.

There are two types of City Councilmembers: at-large and district Members.

The at-large Councilmembers are elected citywide and hold seven spots.

There are ten district members that represent different geographic areas in Philadelphia. Penn’s Council member is Jannie Blackwell, representing the 3rd District of Philadelphia, which is basically all of West Philly.

The full council so far has been meeting every other Thursday, starting at 10am and ending about an hour later. At the beginning of each meeting, the Council  discusses resolutions that commend organizations and recognize active citizens. On the one hand, the Council should be an official body that recognizes good deeds on behalf of the citizenry, but on the other hand, it seems like the Council wastes a lot of time on these formalities.

The last meeting on the 16th of April recognized the Delta Sigma Theta Sorority for outstanding civic service and the Gift of Life organ donation program among others. These are valuable organizations which should be celebrated and promoted, but resolutions recognizing people and organizations risk becoming trivial.

In any case, some food for thought.

Interesting note: all full sessions of City Council must begin with a prayer by a chaplain.

There are 21 standing committees in addition to the full Council. Apparently Philadelphians like committees like mustard on a pretzel. Bills are introduced in the full Council and then shuttled off to the committees for members to debate. This is where the politicking begins. If there is a bill that affects your district but is in a committee you aren’t part of…you better have friends.

The President of the Council has a lot of power. Anna Verna appoints all members to their committees after consulting with the majority and minority leadership. She also appoints chairs and vice-chairs for each committee. Let the bargaining begin!

That is a brief rundown. For the nitty gritty details you can read the official rules.

This decision will have serious repercussions in both Washington and Pennsylvania for the foreseeable future.  Specter had been mulling a possible switch since his vote on the Obama stimulus package garnered the ire of Pennsylvania Republicans.  Former Rep. Patrick Toomey, a conservative Republican who unsuccessfully challenged Specter in 2004 and nearly beat him, announced earlier in the month that he was officially running again.  With the state’s demographics shifting Democratic, Republican primary voters have become an increasingly conservative lot.

Indeed, at his press conference ealier today, Specter indicated that it was his internal polling that led him to make up his mind.  According to recent public polling, conducted by Rasmussen Reports, Specter was trailing Toomey by 21 points in a Republican primary.  With numbers like these, and the fact that only 21 percent of Americans identify themselves as Republicans, it was hard to see Specter making it out of a primary.

Therefore, Specter’s only clear shot at keeping his job would be through the Democratic Party.  Beginning his career as a Democrat and then swicthing to the Republican Party four decades ago, Specter’s decision has truly brought him full circle.

The impact of all this?  Democrats now have a filibuster-proof majority in the U.S. Senate, but this hardly means Democrats will get whatever they want, as Specter will be just as independent-minded as a Democrat as he was when he was Republican.  However, he no longer has to worry about positioning himself as a conservative to defeat Toomey in the primary.  And with Democrats overjoyed by this decision, it’s not likely they’re going to push him too hard on liberal policies.  In other words, Specter can be Specter.

This decision is really all about the health of the Republican Party and its chances of recovery anytime in the next four to eight years.  Specter’s decision represents the diminished position of moderates within the GOP and their ostracism by the far right conservative base.  With 60 Democratic senators (once Franken is seated in the summer), the chances of Democrats losing power seems unlikely anytime soon.

As someone who worked on his campaign from February 2007 up through election day, I still have a hard time believing he won. Obama began his campaign primarily as the anti-war candidate, the Washington outsider who would power-wash the government of corruption and secrecy with…change.

Those commentators and students of politics who know how Washington functioned worried a bit about how Obama was going to enact this sweeping reform if elected. Was he going to pull a Carter and attempt to completely sideline Congress? Emulate Bill Clinton and pitch heated battles with Republicans? Fortunately it doesn’t look like Republicans are going to stage any kind of revolution akin to 1994 beyond marching around with signs, so Obama is probably safe on that front.  Let’s take a look at some of the highlights of Obama’s first 100 Days:

• Ordered the closure of Guantanamo Bay
• Worked with Congress to pass a $787 billion economic stimulus plan
• Reversed the ban on federally funded stem cell research and announced the largest increase in research and development investment in American history
• Began efforts to rid the world of nuclear weapons, indicating a change from the line of foreign policy inherent to American society since President Truman and the beginning of the Cold War

There are lists all over the internet about the good, the bad and the confusing actions Obama has taken in the last few months. Various websites and news organizations have been taking polls—that’s all they really know how to do after that marathon of an election—trying to gauge public opinion on the matter.  The top three words used to describe Obama’s presidency by the public are “intelligent, good and socialist,” in that order. The socialist term shouldn’t be that surprising, since it seems to be the only idea all Republicans can say something negative about.

Despite this, Obama’s approval rate is at 62% according to RCP, and as Colin noted yesterday, Republican Party identification is at a 20 year low.  I am incredibly impressed and pleased with Obama’s performance so far. I certainly do not agree with everything that’s happened—he should have let the AIG bonus issue burn itself out—but Obama’s performance has beyond compensated me for 2 years of unpaid campaign work.

That’s right.  Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post is channeling a new WaPo/ABC News poll suggesting that the number of Americans who identify themselves as Republicans is at its lowest level since 1983.  In comparison, 35 percent of those surveyed identify themselves as Democrats, with 38 percent saying they’re Independents.

That’s quite remarkable.  In November, 18-30 year-old voters went for President Obama at a rate of 2-1.  The new poll, with Obama now nearing his 100th day in office, shows his approval at a noteworthy 69 percent.  Unfortunately, the poll doesn’t get specific on age breakdown.  

But this is obviously discouraging to Republicans, and the way college-aged Republicans begin to redefine their party will be critical to the party’s future.  If they don’t do something dramatic soon, all they can hope for is that Obama becomes a massive failure, and the GOP can create some sort of unified message.  Barring that, it looks to be a long while in the wilderness.

Practically speaking, this is why candidates like Arlen Specter, up for reelection against a conservative opponent in a closed primary, have such a tough road ahead of them.  With numbers like these, the Republican base has become die-hard (with a vengeance!) conservative.  And this puts moderate, Northeastern Republicans in a very difficult position.

College sophomore Alec Webley will be the 2009-2010 chairman of the Undergraduate Assembly.

Webley won the internal UA vote by a margin of 16-8, according to sources inside the meeting.  He defeated the current vice chair of external affairs, College junior Zac Byer, in a heated campaign to woo members.  The initial meeting to hear both candidates speak and take questions far exceeded the capacity of the Huntsman 260 classroom, and included UA members, members of student organizations and curious, active students.

Look for more information in the DP.

Primary Day at 34th and Walnut

One year ago today,  Hillary Clinton defeated Barack Obama by 9 percentage points in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary.  Wow.

On Penn’s campus alone, the lead-up to the primary was incredible.  Visitors during that 6-week build-up period included Chelsea Clinton at Perelman Quad, Bill Clinton in Irvine Auditorium, Hillary Clinton in Houston Hall for a big economic speech and all of the Clintons in the Palestra for the final primary-eve campaign stop.

Stephen Colbert graced us with his presence for a WEEK in Zellerbach Theater.  On Colbert’s Penn show, his guests included Michelle Obama, Gov. Ed Rendell, Mayor Michael Nutter, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews (a Philly native), former candidate John Edwards (remember him?) and Hillary Clinton.  Obama appeared on a giant screen behind Colbert for a satellite interview.

Sen. Casey and Obama at a diner on April 21, 2008

Penn Democrats endorsed Obama and allied with Penn for Obama to get out the vote while The Daily Pennsylvanian endorsed Clinton.

And despite Obama’s lead in delegates one year ago, Clinton’s victory in PA signaled a deep divide between “latte liberals” and “Dunkin’ Donuts Democrats” (The phrase is one of many things I miss about that campaign).

Having covered the primary campaign for the DP as the politics beat reporter, I witnessed the event first-hand.  It was, to say the least, one of the most remarkable experiences of my life.  I came to know politics in a whole new way.  And if you had told me a year ago that Clinton would be Pres. Obama’s chief diplomat leading his foreign policy, I would have thought it to be sheer lunacy.

Good times.  Unbelievable how things have changed.

This week, the Court is taking up the issue of affirmative action presented by Ricci v. DeStefano out of New Haven, Connecticut.  Here’s a good breakdown of the details.

Basically, New Haven sought to promote firefighters based on their scores on a two-component exam: written section plus interview.  As it ended up, the white firefighters all scored above the threshold and the minority firefighters all scored below it.  No minorities could therefore be considered for promotion.

The city threw out the whole process, arguing that the score separation between firefighters was evidence enough that the test was inherently flawed.  The white firefighters, some of whom invested in test-taking materials, sued the city claiming a violation of the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment.  This is a modern case of alleged “reverse racism,” with the justices perhaps ready to overturn aspects of affirmative action.

Andrew Cohen from CBS News summarizes:  “The question in this case is whether a municipality can rig this sort of testing to avoid claims of racial bias against minorities by creating a form of racial bias against whites.”

The conservative side of the court (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas) won’t necessarily get the support of Anthony Kennedy, who has opted to limit affirmative action in the past.  Why?  Kennedy usually holds a pretty broad definition of “equal protection” and has actually led the effort to protect homosexual privacy rights.

So what if Kennedy sides with the liberal wing (Souter, Breyer, Ginsberg, Stevens), and they rule with the city that the test was inherently flawed and should not have been a priority in the promotion?  The city has favored remedying this by prioritizing other aspects of the promotion process (i.e. interview).

Possible implication: If the Court sides with the city, and takes a broad ruling to extend to a wider range of issues, it could have a big impact on university admissions policies and how they deal with SAT/ACT scores, particularly with admissions policies implementing “point” systems (like Michigan).

The New York Times has been covering a related conference discussing this same issue.

And now, for some information on who is funding the campaigns of our very own Congressman for the 2nd District of Pennsylvania, Chaka Fattah.

• 25% of Fattah’s money comes from individual donations. In the 2007-2008 campaign season, he raised $69,700 from individuals.

• 75% ($204,157) of the money came from political action committees (PACs)

However, to put this into perspective, the average amount of money raised by a congressperson in 2007-2008 was $1.4 million. Fattah is in the bottom quintile in terms of fundraising, raking in 19.5% ($274,080) of that amount.

The data gets a bit interesting considering that Fattah spent close to $700,000 dollars in 2008, far more than he raised. He was able to do this because of the massive amount of money that he raised in ‘06. Fattah raised $1 million, but only spent $689,000 in 2006. The end of the ‘06 race left him with a war chest of $452,000 for re-election. This was smart considering that in 2008, all of the money was sucked out by the presidential race.

But did he really need to spend this massive amount of money? In 2008, Fattah’s Republican challenger, Adam Lang, only spent $4,729. Fattah outspent Lang by 14,569%. In 2006 Fattah spent $688,698 to defeat Michael Gessner. Gessner spent $0. Maybe it was to fend of Democratic challengers? Nope. In 2006 Fattah won the primary with 99.93% of the vote. He was the only one on the ballot. It seems a bit fishy…in any case Fattah won in 2008 and 2006 with 89% of the vote.

In 1998 Fattah’s biggest support came from the legal industry. Unions were nowhere in sight. They didn’t even rank among the top 20 donors. But in 2000, support jumped, and over five different unions gave him money, collectively becoming his biggest supporters. In 2008 unions were his biggest supporters, contributing $91,000 to his campaign. Over the life of his congressional career, they have donated $851,675 (these unions are separated into five categories: building trade, industrial, public sector, transportation, and miscellaneous). The legal industry is still a strong supporter and has given Fattah $504,488 since 1998. In 2006 they blew the competition away and far outraised every other industry/interest group with $223,779.

Interesting note: As of April 20, 2008 Chaka Fattah has missed 10.3% (193 votes) of all votes cast in the House of Representatives. The average amount of missed votes for a Congressperson is 4.7% (88 votes). Source: Washington Post Voting Database

In 2008, Fattah voted 98.5% (out of 1,683 votes he was present for) with Democrats.

We’re in the midst of an economic catastrophe.  International tensions are high from Israel to Palestine to Iran to North Korea to Venezuela.  Big government is back and spending billions, but no one can be sure if it’s too little or too much.  The average American is afraid and uncertain, and I think rightly so.

Ninety days ago, Barack Obama became the president of the United States.  If you’ve paid any attention, the cabinet selection process lined up Democratic (and some Republican) all-stars.  Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates, Bill Richardson Judd Gregg Gary Locke, Kathleen Sebelius and a number of others.

Today was the first time that the President assembled his cabinet in one place at one time—three months in.  And Sebelius and Agriculture Sec. Tom Vilsack weren’t even there.

I know, I know.  In a world of Blackberries, iPhones and old-fashioned e-mails (not to mention fleets of assistants and interns), the President would hardly need a cabinet meeting to assure that each is doing his or her job.  And he’s met with each of them separately on a number of occasions. Even on Penn’s campus, a well-attended gathering took place to discuss “green jobs” with Vice President Joe Biden.  But there is something deeply troubling about the President not putting his “smart” people in the same room and discussing what’s so wrong with the country.

I’m a government realist, so I realize most of the policy work is done by staffers and wonks at State, Defense and Treasury.  But I feel that Obama could have used this newsworthy event to talk about more than just a $100 million departmental budget cut.  A small step like this, a cohesive government branch assuring the American public that it’s got everything under control, could have gone a long way.

Maybe I’m imagining a professor’s ideal classroom.  One where students don’t skip class but attend (books in hand) ready to debate and discuss.  Alas, I skip a good share of my lectures (I’m taking astronomy?!).  But this country needs a good, open discussion.  After all, before he was President Barack Obama, he was just another professor at UChicago Law—challenging his students.

Janet Napolitano, Secretary of Homeland Security

Janet Napolitano, the US Secretary of Homeland Security, issued a warning earlier this week regarding right-wing extremist groups. The report’s introduction states,  “The economic downturn and the election of the first African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and recruitment.”

According to The Washington Times, these right-wing radicals “may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration. After Republican and congressional outrage, DHS apologized, saying “Intelligence analysts…ignored objections by civil-liberties officials” before issuing the report.

This apology scares me more than the report itself. If there is actually a danger from right-wing or left-wing extremist groups, I would prefer the agency not hide it because of political pressures. Napolitano was in no way indicating that all Republicans were extreme, nor was she stating that military veterans would become unwarranted targets of surveillance. She was doing her job, issuing a report about threats to the American homeland.

A second report on left-wing extremist groups was conducted and released earlier this year, which (surprise) didn’t make news at all. Catherine Herridge, from Fox News of all places, uncovered this ignored fact and contradicted the talking heads on her station stating, “Well this is an element of the story which has largely gone unreported. One [report] looks at right-wing groups, as you mentioned, and a second is on left-wing groups. Significantly, both were requested by the Bush administration but not finished until President Bush left office.”

Both Republicans and Democrats have crazy, extremist factions—the Animal Liberation Front and Environment Liberation Front certainly vote Democrat, and Timothy McVeigh was a Republican/Libertarian, a US military veteran and member of the NRA, but that in no way means that all environmentalists, military veterans and gun owners are terrorists. Instead of ignoring the extremist elements in each party, it’s much more intelligent and safer for everyone to acknowledge that these extremists exist and for everyone to try to do something to prevent them from turning violent.  Getting all offended and self-righteous when those extremists happen to be part of your political constituency doesn’t help anyone.