SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL ELECTION COVERAGE

Follow live results here courtesy of POLITICO.

Former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford has defeated Democrat Elizabeth Colbert Busch in a special election in South Carolina's 1st Congressional District. The win caps a political comeback for Sanford, a Republican, who made national headlines in 2009 after admitting to an extramarital affair with Maria Belen Chapur, now his fiancée. With 100% of precincts reporting in South Carolina, Sanford leads 77,251 to 64,413 over Colbert Busch (54-45%).

8:30 - We can now project that former Governor Mark Sanford has defeated Elizabeth Colbert Busch in the South Carolina Special Election.

8:25 - With over half of precincts now in, it's a 9-point Sanford lead over Colbert Busch.

8:12 - With 33% of the precincts reporting Governor Mark Sanford leads Elizabeth Colbert Busch 51% - 48%.

SOUTH CAROLINA SPECIAL ELECTION – At the top of the 7 PM (ET) hour polls will be closed in the Special Election in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District between former Republican Governor Mark Sanford and Democratic challenger Elizabeth Colbert Busch.

MASSACHUSETTS SPECIAL ELECTION COVERAGE

Follow live results here courtesy of POLITICO.

9:11 PM  BOSTON (AP) - Democratic Rep. Ed Markey wins Mass. US Senate primary, will vie for Kerry's former seat in June.

9:03 PM  BOSTON (AP) - Ex-Navy SEAL Gomez wins GOP US Senate primary in Mass., moves on to June special election.

MASSACHUSETTS SPECIAL ELECTION – At the top of the 8 PM (ET) hour polls will be closed in the Primary for the Special Senate Election scheduled for Tuesday June 25th to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of John Kerry upon his confirmation as U.S. Secretary of State.

A Look Back on Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution

By: Ned Borninski, FPP Sr. Political Correspondent

            Late in the afternoon on March 5^th, 2013, Vice President Nicolás Maduro conducted a live televised broadcast to his country of Venezuela with some news that would greatly upset and sadden his people.  Hugo Rafael Chávez Frías, the President of Venezuela for more than thirteen years and the man that many of the poor and downtrodden viewed as their hero, was dead.  Chávez had been suffering from a cancerous tumor for the past two years, and although many suspected that the disease could be terminal, it had not deterred his landslide victory in the Presidential election only a few months before.  When the news was announced, millions of Venezuelans poured out onto the streets to express their mourning and grief for their leader.  At Chávez’s state funeral a few days later, over thirty world leaders and celebrities were in attendance, including the Presidents of Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Brazil, Mexico, and Iran. 

Americans Sean Penn, the actor, and Jesse Jackson Jr., the civil rights crusader, also attended the funeral.  Former United States President Jimmy Carter even sent in his condolences.

            With such popular and international mourning over Chávez’s death, one might wonder where United States President Barack Obama could be found in all of this.  Shortly after Chávez’s death, the State Department released a statement that read as follows:

"At this challenging time of President Hugo Chávez's passing, the United States reaffirms its support for the Venezuelan people and its interest in developing a constructive relationship with the Venezuelan government. As Venezuela begins a new chapter in its history, the United States remains committed to policies that promote democratic principles, the rule of law, and respect for human rights."

Due to the strain that has afflicted United States-Venezuelan relations, this statement has widely been seen to be a criticism of Chávez and his policies, as the United States has been referring to Chávez as a “dictator” since the early 2000’s.  Indeed, according to recent polls, only six percent of Americans approved of Chávez while he was in office, and famous televangelist Pat Robertson even called for his assassination. In turn, Chávez’s government had leveled intense criticism at the United States; Chávez even went so far as to refer to George W. Bush as “the Devil” during a speech at the United Nations.

            Ironically, Robertson’s call may have been taken to heart by the Bush Administration.  An astonishingly little known fact is that the United States and the CIA had sponsored a coup in 2002 against Chávez’s then still young government. This information was well known to the Venezuelan government, and was further supported by secret documents leaked by Wikileaks.  Perceiving him as a threat to US oil supplies, elements of the Venezuelan military removed Chávez from power for two days, setting up a puppet regime during that period that dissolved the Venezuelan Parliament and the country’s constitution. However, the coup’s CIA planners failed to take into account the fact that Chávez enjoyed far reaching popular support across the population of Venezuela.  A civilian uprising toppled the short-lived government of coup leader Pedro Carmona and restored Hugo Chávez to power. Since that moment, Chávez has spared no barbs against the country that attempted to topple his government; the same country that had succeeded in similar covert takeovers worldwide.

            Just who was Hugo Chávez, one might ask, and why did the United States oppose him so much? Well, the answer to that question can be found with a look into Chávez’s background. Born in 1954 to humble origins, Chávez attended the Military Academy of Venezuela after high school.  The young officer quickly distinguished himself in operations against Maoist insurgents during the 1970’s, educating himself on history and politics while doing so. Sympathetic to the plight of the poor he witnessed, Chávez became involved with left wing socialist groups. However, Chávez rejected the models of socialism practiced in the Soviet Union and China. His hero was Simon Bolivar, the liberator of Venezuela and much of South America during the wars of independence early in the previous century. Indeed, Chávez would later become a major force behind the renaming of the nation from the “Republic of Venezuela” to the “Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela,” in honor of the nation’s founding father.

            Chávez continued to gain influence by working as a teacher at the Military Academy for a while and also by striving to protect the rights of the country’s discriminated minority of Native Americans.  In 1989, Chávez supported Carlos Andrés Pérez for President of Venezuela.  After his election, however, Pérez violently suppressed dissent in the nation, slaughtering hundreds of political opponents and protestors. Chávez broke with Pérez at this point, and in 1992 attempted a coup against him.  The coup was quickly put down, and Chávez was imprisoned until 1994, when he was pardoned after Pérez was impeached.  Chávez spent much of the next few years building up support for his own eventual Presidential run. In 1999, Chávez was elected President of Venezuela, and one of his first acts was to revise the country’s constitution to allow for more direct participation in politics by the people of Venezuela, one of the main factors that have led to around 81% of the population participating in Venezuelan elections, compared to approximately 45% in the United States.

            Governing originally as a center-left social democrat, Chávez was nevertheless an opponent of the neoliberal Washington Consensus. His government expanded welfare programs and regulated the country’s oil industry, which had been an important source of oil for the United States, to allow for more profits to be distributed to the people. Additionally, Chávez criticized the United States’ foreign policy, arguing that the War on Terror was only encouraging more terrorists due to the innocents who were killed as collateral damage.  For these reasons, and also possibly the general climate of paranoia in post 9/11 America, the Bush Administration supported the attempted coup against Chávez.

            However, this coup would have the opposite effect Washington intended.  Brought back into power by a massive wave of public support, Chávez moved drastically to the left.  Condemning the United States’ wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also the treatment of Iran, Chávez labeled the United States as an imperialist nation, out to conquer the world for its own benefit. Interestingly, Chávez had his allies in the American left, including former President Jimmy Carter, who condemned his nation’s coup attempt against Chávez. Chávez also publically recommended Hegemony or Survival, a book critical of US foreign policy by famed MIT professor Noam Chomsky, another Chávez supporter. However, while his relations with the United States went into the gutter, Chávez’s Venezuela found new allies in Iran and the Middle East, and also in the other left wing governments of Latin America.  Angered by centuries of abusive and imperialistic American interference into their nations similar to the coup attempt in Venezuela, a wave of left wing governments such as those of Evo Morales in Bolivia, Lula de Silva in Brazil, and Christina Kirchner in Argentina rose as Chávez allies.

            Chávez’s government moved to the left on economics as well. While originally limited to a few social democratic reforms, following the coup attempt the government began supporting outright socialism.  The Chávez administration nationalized all of Venezuela’s oil industry and promoted the creation of more than 100,000 worker cooperatives, where workers democratically self-managed their own businesses.  These reforms caused a 50% drop in the poverty rate, and improved living standards for more than a million Venezuelans. Now, with the failures of socialism in China and the former USSR, one might think that Chávez’s variant would lead to a similar economic collapse.  But, one would be mistaken.  Chávez’s variant of socialism, referred to as “Democratic Socialism” or “Socialism of the 21^st Century” was a decentralized, bottom-up, popular form of socialism that had little in common with the bureaucratic collectivism found behind the Iron Curtain. Perhaps as a result of this, for the years following the implementation of these policies the economy of Venezuela has expanded by every measurable standard; that is, except for a brief slump from 2008 to 2009 caused by the world economic crisis.

            Of course, this complete and total rejection of neoliberalism did not sit well with the United States, or her ally, the authoritarian regime of Alvaro Uribe in Venezuela’s neighbor to the west, Colombia.  The Bush administration continued to accuse Chávez of being a “dictator” and of aiding global terrorism.  Chávez was specifically accused of helping aid the FARC terrorist group in Colombia. However, upon Barack Obama’s election as US President in 2008, it seemed as though relations would improve.  Chávez met Obama at a Pan-American summit in early 2009 and said to him, “I want to be your friend.” Unfortunately, Obama, perhaps worried about his approval ratings at home, declined, and continued the War on Terror and denials of US involvement in the 2002 coup.

            Despite all of these events, Chávez always remained incredibly popular among the Venezuelan people, most likely because of his advocacy on behalf of the poor, minorities, and the downtrodden. Certainly, Chávez was not perfect; even his most ardent supporters agree that his attempts to micromanage certain aspects of the government turned out not to work for the best.  However, Chávez continues to be, and will probably be for a long time, regarded as one of the greatest politicians in Latin America since Simon Bolivar, with his policies having vastly helped millions of ordinary people. According to the Venezuelan Constitution, a new presidential election shall have to occur within 30 days after Chávez’s death, and Chávez’s Vice President and chosen successor, Nicolás Maduro is currently the poll favorite. It is fitting perhaps, that the so called “Bolivarian Revolution,” which survived sixteen elections and referendums, shall be continued on even after its founding hero has passed away.

In Aménas, AQIM, and Mokhtar Belmokhtar

By Jason Colella, Sr. Political Editor and Co-Founder

The Maghreb and Mali are currently in a state of seeming free fall -- chaos descending to the nations of North Africa. The chaos in Mali was a result of a coup d’état and succession movement in the northern state of Azwad lead by a group called the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA). MNLA allied themselves with other groups that were more than happy to help overthrow the Malian government including Ansar Dine and Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM). These two Islamic extremist groups have proved to be well funded and organized easily overpowering the MNLA and took control of the revolution; subsequently, they have pushed for a hard line Islamic state to replace Mali. Mali in conjunction with the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) convinced the UN Security Council to give military aid to the Malian government. As a result, French President Francois Hollande sent aircraft and ground troops to Mali. This foreign intrusion into the politics of the Sahel and Maghreb angered many of Africa’s radical groups including one called al-Mulatahemeen (masked brigade) which is a splinter group of AQIM.

Al-Mulatahemeen was formed by Mokhtar Belmokhtar, who was in AQIM senior leadership, but Belmokhtar was viewed by Abu Musab Abdel Wadoud, the leader of AQIM since 2004, as a threat to his own power and expelled from AQIM.

Mokhtar Belmokhtar was born in Algeria and trained in Jihad as part of the Mujahideen in the Afghanistan Civil War before he moved back to Algeria were he quickly proved to a talented and fearless terrorist as a part of the Armed Islamic Group of Algeria (GIA), but as the GIA was slowing falling apart he became a member of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) which would eventually become AQIM. Belmokhtar grew in power becoming a senior commander in AQIM where he successfully partook in many high profile kidnappings. AQIM funds itself through ransom collected on those they kidnap. It is figured that they have made approximately 100 million dollar off their kidnappings making them al-Qaeda’s wealthiest branch.

Belmokhtar penchant for kidnapping did not end when his ties to AQIM did. Just recently al-Mulatahemeen showcased their abilities when they launched a raid on a gas facility in In Aménas, Algeria. The group managed to take over 800 people hostage although according to many sources the raid was actually a failure. According to these sources, they planned on intercepting a bus filled with foreign employees as it was on the way to the airport, but they were unable to complete this objective. Also, the hostages held at the Tigantourine facilities were supposed be transported to Northern Mali were they were going to be held captive. However, the Malian military acted fairly quickly and ferociously resulting in roughly the death of 40 hostages and 30 militants. The government has received some criticism from the international community for what has been viewed as a poorly executed and dangerous operation which could have been better executed if Algeria would have consulted other nations before acting.

Belmokhtar has stated that the objective of the kidnappings were to stop French involvement in the Malian Civil War and also some sources claim they demanded the release of Aafia Siddiqui and Omar Abdel-Rahman both convicted terrorist serving lengthy sentences in US Prisons.

Although they were not successful in this mission; it is important to remember that these organizations are far from become inconsequential players in North Africa especially with the vast financial wealth AQIM has aculminated. It is likely that France and Mali will be victorious at regaining control of Mali and the state of Azwad. It just comes down to what will the long term destabilizing effects on the region will be.

Wednesday Morning Breakfast Menu 1/30

Good Wednesday morning! Another day, another bunch of headlines. Here are a few articles on today's top stories.







News/Politics

Senate confirms John Kerry - Seung Min Kim, Politico
Republicans Will Never Attract Minorities - Michael Tomasky, Daily Beast
Obama's 2nd Term: The Permanent Campaign - Molly Ball, The Atlantic
Fox News Ratings Hit 12-Year Low - Katherine Fung, Huff Post
A Judicial Atrocity - Jeffrey Toobin, The New Yorker
Bipartisan Hunting Buddies - James Baker and John Dingell, New York Times Op-Ed
Lynch to Announce Senate Run on Thursday - Sean Sullivan, Washington Post
The GOP Suicide Club - Steve Kornacki, Salon.com
Can Cory Booker Keep It Together? - Ruby Cramer, BuzzFeed Politics
Transportation Secretary to Leave Administration - Ken Thomas, AP via TIME
The Rising Progressive Tide - Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Washington Post

Sports

Lewis Staunchly Denies Using Banned Drug - Chris Burke, Audibles
A-Rod's Stay in New York All But Over - Tyler Kepner, New York Times
Ex-Jets GM: No Regrets for Tebow Trade - Rich Cimini, ESPN
Kelly Unsure Whether Hoax Affected Te'o - Brian Hamilton, Chicago Tribune

Tuesday Tea Time

A wide array of articles showcasing important international issues.

1. AU talks break down over DR Congo crisis, AlJazeera English 
2. A Glimpse into a Mysterious African Dictatorship: Is Eritrea on the Verge? -- William Lloyd George & Addis Ababa, Time
3. Blood in Egypt’s Streets: Anger in Tahrir then Soccer Violence in Port Said -- Ashraf Khalil, Time
4. Mali rebels melt away in face of French advance -- Luke Harding, The Guardian
5. US military sending air tankers to refuel French jets over Mali, AP via The Guardian
6. War in Mali: France and African Allies Take on Islamist Militants, Time
7. Mali: Timbuktu Locals Saved Some of Their City’s Ancient Manuscripts from Islamists --  Vivienne Walt, Time
8. French, Malians retake Timbuktu, rebels torch library -- Adama Diarra, Rueters
9. The Unspectacular, Unsophisticated Algerian Hostage Crisis -- Scott Stewart, Stratfor
10. Medvedev: Assad's chances of retaining power in Syria are shrinking, Reuters via The Guardian
11. Indonesia Readies for $1 Trillion Trade Talks -- John Heilprin, Time
12. The United Kingdom Moves Away from the European Project -- Adriano Bosoni, Stratfor
13. Berlusconi defends Mussolini for backing Hitler, USA Today
14. 50 Years After Landmark Treaty, Can France and Germany Save Europe? -- Bruce Crumley, Time
15. Carlos Slim closer to entering Mexico's television market -- Daniel Hernandez, LA Times Mexico's Drug War: Persisting Violence and a New President, Stratfor
16. Inmates moved after bloody Venezuela prison riot -- Ian James, USA Today
17. 'Complete panic' as 233 killed in Brazil nightclub fire -- Sheena Rossiter, USA Today

116 Years of the Same

By Jason Colella, Sr. Political Editor & Co-founder

Picture provided by Wikipedia

“There are two ideas of government. There are those who believe that, if you will only legislate to make the well-to-do prosperous, their prosperity will leak through on those below. The Democratic idea, however, has been that if you legislate to make the masses prosperous, their prosperity will find its way up through every class which rests up on them.” This may sound like something that any mainstream Democrat may have said during this election cycle, but that would be wrong. It was, indeed, said by a Democrat at a National Convention, but not recently. William Jennings Bryan said this during his 1896 Presidential Acceptance Speech, which would later come to be known as the Cross of Gold Speech.

Bryan was right about Supply Side Economics before it was even invented. Maybe the world would have been better off if Reagan, Hayek, and Freidman idolized Bryan instead of an Adam Smith that he himself would not have recognized and would have vehemently opposed. The Wealth of Nations does agree with Bryan’s statement, but Republicans seem to forget that anyone with the ability to read and curiosity could find that out. The fundamental flaw in the Republican economic mindset is simple – they think rich people have no self-control. It assumes that if you give a millionaire a million dollars, he will spend it all. Has the idea of saving ever occur to them? The other issue is, just as obvious, rich people buy and do rich people things like play polo and buy designer clothes - which has little to no economic impact on the average working class American. The very people this ludicrous idea was intended to help.
Now to the non-economic point his statement brings up. It showcases a trait of American political thought that is often incorrectly assumed to be nonexistent – consistency. The Republicans have consistently run on the same bad and ill-informed economic policy for the last 116 years. Congratulations. We think politics today is so partisan, so gridlocked, so ideological, and so ineffective. But, I hate to be the bearer of bad news; it has always been that way and, quite frankly, will always be that way.

Congress is partisan, and it always has been. Preston Brooks, a congressman, nearly beat to death Senator Charles Sumner on the floor of the US Senate over a political difference in 1857. Eric Cantor and Boehner have yet to beat up a Democrat. Today the violence is verbal attacks in the press, and even those as vitriolic, as they may be, that are not libelous or crude. We are more civilized in our discourse, which goes to show you how messed we have been and how messy democracy truly is. Congress is partisan because of the people it attracts. People run for office, not because Congress is such a high paying job with great perks like many disenfranchised Americans will tell you. They run because they have strong views that they want others to not only to hear and believe, but be forced to follow. Honestly, most of them could, and did, make much more money in their past life than as a congressman.

Gridlock and inefficacy does run rampant in the government, but it can be dealt with. Elected officials need to be open minded and willing to negotiate, which many of them are incapable of doing today because of their strong ideology footing. It is not, however, their fault that their views are as unyielding as a raging bull – stubborn and crazy – it is the electorate for electing them to office. Quit electing nut jobs. I mean, I have a poor view of the fine Americans who live in Minnesota’s 6th Congressional district because they have elected Michelle Bachman repeatedly. Gridlock and inefficacy can keep people from doing horrible idiotic things. Sometimes doing nothing can be better than doing things, especially when action results in stupid decisions.

Bryan has two key pieces of advice to offer. First, Republicans have always had a poor taste in economic policy, and secondly the concept of political consistency. Government seems bad, but it always has been bad. It is not so much the fault of the politicians because most are well meaning when they get there; it is rather the fault of voters who take the tremendous privilege of participating in the greatest experiment in social theory ever undertaken not seriously enough, and a flawed system that promotes gridlock. As Winston Churchill said, ’’No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.’’

Talking Points: The American Voter

By: Will Snyder, Managing Editor Fourth Party Politics

Do a majority of America’s voters know enough? Care enough? Think about the issues clearly enough? A sign of our political self-confidence is how we regularly scrutinize and call to attention the ridiculous things our politicians say. Any average Joe can easily make fun of the things politicians say, but who is there to rebuff the equally dumb, ill-informed, and offensive comments of the average senseless voter. What if the problem in today’s 24 hour news cycle and political system isn’t with the politicians themselves or most of the people who will read this, but is instead those individuals among us who represent the tendency to act and say thoroughly stupid things.

Most would agree that honesty and truthfulness in our politicians and government circles is desirable. So why, you ask has it been so difficult and maybe impossible to achieve these goals? Maybe the conclusion is that we do not desire the truth; however, we sincerely believe we do. Maybe the average American voter can’t handle the truth. You see the truth is government isn’t perfect, was never meant to be perfect, and will never be perfect. The sooner the extreme Tea Party and Occupy movements realize this along with the party lacks - the better.

Not only are we blind to the faults the voters make, but the voters often times commit equally egregious faults by basing their political beliefs on downright lies and myths. Our Democracy or more precisely our Republic was founded on the belief that the voters would base their beliefs and cast their votes on reason and truth. Yet, most of the voters are truly uneducated on the issues and base their beliefs not on reason, but the inclination to believe what they want to believe, regardless of the facts. You see maybe the confidence of our Republic rests on a myth.

As always is the case, the holiday season brings out the best in political debate among friends and family. And this past holiday season was no different, especially with the fiscal cliff and gun control debates. One message seemed quite clear to me this year - people on both sides of the aisle are fed up with government and more than usual.

Some people think that I have this problem with the extreme right Tea Party movement, and they couldn’t be further from the truth. I’m all for free speech and expression even if your sole existence is a waste of space and oxygen on god’s loving planet. In all actuality, I find both the Tea Party and Occupy movements to be entertaining to say the least. At least these people, as habitually stupid as the may be, have gotten off the couch and are letting their voices be heard.

What does drive me intensely insane are the fools who embrace the beliefs of these movements, yet they refuse to give their precious time and effort to what they claim they believe in - the lazy hypocrites of America.

I’m all in favor of people expressing their political opinions – but with reason. If you truthfully believe in something, you have the opportunity every few years to let your voice be heard. They’re called elections. If you don’t like something get off the couch and get your hand out of the Cheetos bag and change it; in the meantime shut the **** up. Much blood was shed for the right to elect freely in this country, before you blame the system look in the mirror.

Yours in Democracy, -Will Snyder

A Lite Breakfast

Articles on some of today's top stories.

After Successful Missile Launch, North Korea Threatens New Nuclear Test -- Austin Ramzy, Time
Davos: Mario Draghi, The Man Who Would Save Europe -- Catherine Mayer and Michael Schuman, Time
Deficit Hawks Down -- Paul Krugman, NY Times
Pentagon Is Set to Lift Combat Ban for Women -- Elisabeth Bumiller and Thom Shanker, NY Times
Yes, He Can: Twenty Ways Obama Can Use Executive Power to Push a Progressive Agenda -- The Editors, The Nation
Obama to announce McDonough as chief of staff, Pfeiffer as senior adviser -- Jenifer Epstein, Politico

Prejudice in 2013

By Nathan Wood, Staff writer FPP


The other day I was studying with a friend on campus when a lady came up to us. She expressed to us her discontent of not having a place to study at night on the weekends. She said something along the lines of “Don’t you hate it that they close all the buildings when us students have to study?”

Although I thought it was strange that she approached us, we gave slight nods. What she said next troubled me:

“Everywhere I go people are either talking or talking to me.” Then she goes into a whisper: “This black guy came up to me and started talking to me. I mean like what the f***? I mean, I’m from Florida and I don’t want to talk to any black people!”

At this point, I was in shock from what this lady said, but I was also trying to say the right things to get her to go somewhere else. Listening to racist comments makes me livid and sick. If it went any further, I would have had to say something, but luckily, she ended up leaving shortly after.

Now, I thought that maybe it was because of where I attend school (Tennessee), or maybe it was just by random chance that I came across someone who was racist, but those things still do not write-off the social ills still lurking today. Prejudice still exists today. The thought of people being inherently worse than others based on a factor they cannot control is absurd, yet people still seem to think it is an OK way to act. If we want to fix this in our society, a stride toward educating people must be made. It is the primary way to flush this attitude out of society. Although it may seem obvious, people need to know what prejudice is and why it is wrong.

After the recent Martin Luther King Jr. Day has passed, we look back and considered the fact that racism towards minorities, specifically blacks, has greatly diminished, and our legal system has greatly catalyzed this. However, prejudice still exists in many forms today: racism, sexism, age discrimination, and religion. The misunderstanding of ethnic groups can be eliminated through education. Although it is something every person needs to work on in varying degrees, over time, we can push towards a more egalitarian society.