Nov

4

Embedded: un-lazy Sunday

Written by

Bwog editor Lydia DePillis is still in Kentucky, posting from coffeeshops.

Backer

FRANKFORT, Ky.–The Columbia cavalcade awoke at a reasonable hour this morning, shaking off the remnants of last night’s indiscretions (I don’t feel the need to recount them here). The Louisville visit went well, if you count driving an hour both ways to awkwardly mingle with other College Democrats and make drunken toasts to Steve Beshear a success. The CU Dems were entitled to a bit of a smug smile in the realm of internecine collegiate politics—according to a source from the George Washington/American University contingent, Beshear had praised the New Yorkers at a rally in Louisville yesterday, leaving the 40-odd DC kids largely unrecognized.

Now they’re in Frankfort, getting ready for another round of “hot knocking” in this picturesque southern capitol. The Dems board had been treated to an inspirational e-mail last night from absent president Josh Lipsky, who declared that “this trip helps transcend the usual comings and goings of a college organization and makes us a force in progressive action.” The rank and file, in turn, received a pep talk from communications director Jonathan Backer, who jumped up and down and whooped to whip up enthusiasm.

Meanwhile, rather than trying to rehash the larger race, I’ll direct you to today’s coverage from the Post. Although my Spec colleague and I may snag an interview with the soon-to-be Kentucky governor later today. E-mail me if you’ve got questions.

Tags: ,

17 Comments

  1. Big Bill

    WHAT ABOUT THE BRIT SPEC EDITOR JOSH CHAMBERS??? WE ARE MOST GENUIENLY CONCERNED FOR THAT LAD, BEING THAT HE HAS VENTURED FORTH INTO THE EXTREMELY SCARY TERRITORY THAT IS THE AMERICAN SOUTH.

    GOD SAVE JOSH CHAMBERS

    -The Queen

  2. lol cat  

    this trip helps transcend the usual comings and goings of a college organization and makes us a force in progressive action

    ahhhhhhhhhahahahahahahahahha

  3. again

    the pictures? who gives a fuck. they're awful! and irrelevant! and ugly! we don't even know who they are!

    GOD I HATE THIS ASSUMPTION THAT THE DEMOCRATS TRIP TO FUCKING KENTUCKY IS THOUGHT WORTHY OF COVERAGE BY BOTH BWOG AND SPECTATOR. NOBODY, I MEAN NOBODY, GIVES A FUCK.

    • observer

      I think this coverage is great. The Dems escape the completely pointless columbia activist bubble every year to help make change in the real world.

      If any of you know something else that over 50 columbia students are doing together over Election Break, please volunteer what it is so that Bwog can cover it. Oherwise shut the fuck up and stop posting your shity comments.

  4. queen  

    we are the champions

  5. again

    "The Dems escape the completely pointless columbia activist bubble every year to help make change in the real world."

    the problem is they're not making any change. they're helping put a member of their own into power, which is kind of a pointless exercise in making themselves feel better about their worthlessness in an election that's already been won. frankly, if you're a person who believes the two party system is good for america, you're seriously in need of a reality check. my idea of significant change: someone getting up one morning and saying, "you know what, washington was right, this is not the direction i want to see this country taking." partisanship = death. we do not live in a democracy but a twopartocracy. and it sucks.

  6. wow

    how do the CU Dems justify this apparently worthless trip/use of money? It's time for allocations/expenditures to be more transparent.

    • so..

      wouldn't a nice start to this whole transparency business be signing your post? clubs get money from governing boards, the councils, and cosponsoring organizations by, you know, justifying their expense. It's been done, and it's how the process works. If you're concerned about it, run for one of the above, or else please, just shut up.

  7. again

    do you think that by citing wikipedia, you're successfully refuting an ideal?

    washington didn't advocate against a two party system, he advocated against political parties in general. it just so happens that the only ones with any authority in this country are the Republicans and the Democrats.

    stability is a just bourgeois fill-in-the-blank for paralysis. and it's what the state fucking wants.

  8. and how bout

    this one http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system fuckface.

    what the hell is with bwog commenters telling other people to shut up? it's bwog. i could write, "FIRST!" and you fucking can't tell me to shut up.

    • me!  

      i didnt tell you to shut up, i told you to have an educated opinion about something before you fly off the handle idiotically about it, but too late for that.

      yes, i know washington abhorred parties, but guess what, politicians didn't even campaign in the 18th century, they thought it was below them (speaking of which, be-low me). do you really think the country would be better off by having people vote for candidates that they knew nothing about. also, washington had slaves, so he wasn't exactly the paragon of virtue you make him out to be . i guess maybe you should also take a history course.

      the party system offers voters with few resources critical cognitive cues to make informed votes without doing research on each individual candidate they are otherwise unlikely to learn about. i don't even know why i wasted my time writing to someone who believes democracies can exist without parties, as you obviously have never academically looked at politics. fuck you.

      • fuck you?

        somebody who says "fuck you" to someone who has another opinion is probably a fascist. and i wasnt referring to you about the "shut up"...

        you're saying that political parties are good because they allow for intellectual laziness on the part of the populace. great idea.

© 2006-2015 Blue and White Publishing Inc.