Olivier Douliery | Abaca Press | MCT

Newt Gingrich answers a question during the Republican presidential debate at DAR Constitution Hall in Washington, D.C., Tuesday, Nov. 22, 2011

The candidates competing for the Republican nominations include Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, Ron Paul, Gary E. Johnson, Buddy Roemer, Fred Karger and Rick Santorum.

“Gingrich is polling well right now, but I think Romney will be the ultimate winner,” College Republican President Jun Yoon said. “I prefer Romney because I think he will poll better with independent and moderate [voters] than Gingrich. It’s what is the most crucial in the general election.”

Yoon believes the Republican Party has a good chance of winning the 2012 election.

“I think the GOP is doing good. Researches have shown that economic conditions are the most important indicator for elections, and the voters are dissatisfied with Obama’s policies, and the economy is only going to get worse due to the Euro crisis,” he said.

According to a recent Gallup Poll, Gingrich is leading with 33 percent of voter support and Romney is coming in second with 23 percent. Ron Paul is currently trailing in third with 9 percent of support.

“I think that Mitt Romney is going to win the primary. Once we know who wins the primary, then we can tell what the GOP’s chances are of winning,” senior Joel Yambert said. “[Romney] has less negative backlash in media and social media than the other candidates.”

Yambert believes that the better image will benefit Romney in the long run.

“He is sometimes wishy-washy, but I agree with most of his stances,” he said. “On social issues he is pro-life and I am pro-life.”

However, there are also students who are less optimistic of the GOP’s chances in the upcoming election.

“I am not very hopeful for a good candidate to emerge from the primary to confront the Dems in 2012,” former College Democrats president junior Sherveen Mashayekhi said. “But I think Mitt Romney will win the nomination.”

Nearly everyone agrees that Romney will win the nomination.

“I think Newt Gingrich is going to win the primary in the Iowa caucus, and Mitt Romney is going to win the Republican nomination,” sophomore Jake Lyonfields said.

Lyonfields is critical of the way the Republican candidates have been running their campaigns.

“They have all said enough ridiculous or terrible things so none would be electable, especially their positions on social issues are out of the line with what the majority of Americans believe,” he said.

According to Leigha Empson, president of the College Democrats, the outcomes of the primaries and the general election are still up in the air.

“I think it’s hard to tell who would win the primary right now with all the recent changes. I think Romney would do better in the general election, but Gingrich has a big surge in recent polls, so he would be getting more campaign contributions…It’s too early to tell right now,” Empson said. “I don’t think any of the candidates stand any chance besides Romney. It depends on who wins the Republican nomination.”

Empson also believes that external factors beyond the candidates themselves will influence the GOP’s chance of success in the election.

“There are still a lot of variables, like the Supreme Court’s decision on health care, that would affect Obama’s campaign,” she said.

The Iowa caucuses will take place on Jan. 3, followed by primaries in January in New Hampshire, South Carolina and Florida.

Although both College Democrats and College Republicans have yet to start their campaigns, individual members from both groups have been working with national campaign organizations.

Junior Michael Rosengart, a member of Students and Young Professionals for Jon Huntsman (GenH) is working on Huntsman’s campaign for the Republican presidential candidacy.

“[Huntsman] has a lot to offer for voters of various political denominations,” he said.

GenH, chaired by Jeb Bush, has 139 campus chapters in 42 states, including four in Missouri.

“Governor Huntsman is a candidate who isn’t attached to talking points but to reality. Personally, that’s why I support him,” Rosengart said. “I interned in both the House and the Senate this summer, and there is nobody willing to tell it straight. Governor Huntsman will. It’s why he understands the threats of climate change and supports civil unions.”

Rosengart has been reaching out to the other members of the College Republicans about supporting Huntsman as the GOP candidate.

“We are planning to watch the next GOP debates [as a group],” junior Joel Yambert, president of the College Republicans, said. “As a College Republican, I cannot tell you who we are supporting yet.”

Sophie Schuit, the College Democrat campaign coordinator and a member of the Organizing for America (OFA), has actively campaigned for President Obama.

Organizing for America is a community-organizing project of the Democratic National Committee and is present on three campuses in Missouri. On Sept. 17, OFA led a phone-calling campaign, encouraging residents of University City to reelect the president. On Tuesday, the organization held a conference call among all the different university campuses across America to celebrate the DADT repeal.

Schuit was unavailable for comment.

“We haven’t started our campaigning yet, but we are supporting [Schuit] by telling our members about the phone bank,” College Democrats President Sherveen Mashayekhi, a junior, said.

Although the College Democrats are still planning their campaigning strategies, they will support President Obama in the upcoming election.

“While Obama hasn’t executed on the innovation of government we expected, he has done a solid job at keeping the nation moving forward, considering the truly difficult circumstances the economy and wars abroad have left him in,” Mashayekhi said. “His speech to Congress on the American Jobs Act was invigorating and demonstrated that he still knows when push must come to shove when it comes to the tragic comedy we call American politics.”

Difference in politics aside, most students working on campaigns are enjoying the experience.

“The Governor says it himself all the time. Most candidates will run away from their record. Governor Huntsman is running on his record. That’s refreshing and as a young Republican, it’s exciting,” Rosengart said.

The College Democrats and the College Republicans will meet head-to-head in the upcoming Campus Crossfire on Oct. 18.

Partisanship is common in national politics and is also alive at Washington University. Members of political student groups on campus say they use the partisan divide to foster debate.

Senior Ryan Winograd, president of the College Republicans, said political disputes do occur between students at the University, but usually they are purely intellectual.

“I’ve had debates and I’ve had arguments with students. It’s never gotten violent. Ever,” Winograd said. “I guess that might be an issue at some schools, but I don’t think that’s an issue at Wash. U. I’ve definitely seen yelling, heated, maybe some name-calling.”

One upcoming debate between the College Republicans and College Democrats is Campus Crossfire on Monday night. Each group will have a representative debating the issue of health care.

The debate will consist of 45 minutes of formal debate, followed by 15 minutes of questions from the audience.

“It’s always fun,” said junior Katherine Berger, president of the College Democrats. “We always end up having the Democrats on one side of the room and the Republicans on the other, and there’s cheering.”

Winograd said he values the debate created by disputes among those with differing viewpoints. Although he said some political discussions on campus are unproductive, he believes it is important for the College Democrats and the College Republicans to play a leading role in promoting productive discourse.

“We definitely have students with differing opinions, and you do see them arguing about it sometimes. Sometimes it happens in a manner that I think fosters good discourse and enlightenment, perhaps on both sides of the issues, and other times it occurs in a way that is completely unproductive,” Winograd said. “I think the goal of the College Republicans and College Democrats should be to make sure that those sorts of debates and discussions happen in a way that is educational and not confrontational.”

Berger said she considers the partisan divide on campus to be a source of debate rather than a conflict.

“I think that people who are really interested in politics and particularly interested in partisan politics know that your political beliefs do not necessarily define who you are as a person, although it’s certainly an important part of it,” Berger said. “At least in my own experience, as much as we might argue over health care or the economy or the war, [or] whatever the subject may be, we’re all students. We’re all on that same sort of level.”

Winograd argued that debates and discussions between people with differing opinions are vital to the development of knowledge about an issue.

“[Dialogue is] the only way you can truly question your beliefs, grow your beliefs [or] change your beliefs,” Winograd said. “Maybe you actually know everything and that dialogue, the discourse strengthens your beliefs. But when it gets to the point of yelling or name-calling, you’re not really debating anything. You’re just staying with what you believe; you’re not questioning what you believe in any way.”

Another collaboration effort between political student groups is in the works. The College Democrats, College Republicans and the Association of Black Students (ABS) are coordinating another health care debate. The debate will involve politicians and policy experts from both ends of the political spectrum.

“That’s an example of more than just our two groups working together, but, more broadly, [we will work] with other groups in the school to bring what will hopefully be an enlightening discussion to campus,” Winograd said.

Winograd hopes these events will help to inform the public of important political issues.

“What’s important for me is …that when people make decisions, they are as well-informed as possible so that they can then apply their ideology and decide what their preferred outcome is,” Winograd said. “I may not agree with it—that’s fine. I actually really enjoy debating with students whom I disagree with to see why I disagree with them. What’s frustrating is when I’m debating with someone who doesn’t really have good reasons for their beliefs. For me, it’s more fun when they’re very well educated about [the issues].”

Thank God.

I live for the banter, for the dissent and dissension, as much as the next political buff. I love the formal debates on the same scale as the earnest conversations in line at Whispers. I cherish the site of College Democrats and College Republicans flyers hanging side by side like proud flags on every vertical surface on campus. Politics is an omnipresent force at this school: from the classroom to the dorm room, from the New York Times to Student Life, we are a community of diverse political ideas in the midst of one of the great American swing states. Is there any better place to engage?

If, reading this, you find yourself worrying that you may not fit in with this level of political fervor, simply ask yourself these questions. Did you spend Fall 2008 frenetically working for the Obama or McCain campaigns?  Did you recently vote in your first local election? Have you done community service or raised awareness for a cause? Have you stood up for something you believe in? Have you embraced this country as your home, be it temporarily or permanently?

You, my friend, are interested in politics. It is the force that drives your world, that has the power to make your passions into actions. So speak up and join up! Wash. U. is resplendent with College Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians all dying to make you a card-carrying member. If you’re not interested in partisanship, join Green Action or Students for Choice, volunteer with the Campus Y, run for Student Union office, or participate in any of the millions of student groups that pledge their time toward political and community action.

As you begin your career here at Wash. U., you will find yourself besieged from all sides by your fellow students waving brightly colored fliers and extolling the virtues of Group X and Club Y; offering the various seductions of pizza and candy and free pens to draw you like so many moths to the flame. At the same time, your advisers, deans, parents, residential advisors, and various well-meaning others will encourage you to pace yourself and not over-schedule your first semester. Eventually, you’re going to figure out where you fit between these extremes of activity and inactivity. My only advice for you as you embark on your time at this university is that you find something that has meaning for you: don’t shy away from engagement, from speaking out about your passions. Whether you care to admit it or not, you are interested in politics – embrace it, engage with it, and you won’t regret it.

Oren’s lecture will address many of the problems facing Israel today, including terrorism, threats from Iran, the nation’s military arsenal and changing demographics, among others.

The speech, titled “Israel in the Face of Existential Threats,” will largely focus on the future of Israel and how it can survive.

“I think it’s a different opinion they don’t perhaps get otherwise, to talk to someone who not only studies this in the classroom but also [offers] a good perspective for them,” Oren said in an interview with Student Life and the Jewish Light.

The event was organized to help educate students and develop a dialogue on campus about current Israeli issues.

“[We want to] reignite the dialogue regarding the Middle East on campus because we feel it’s not an issue discussed on campus, and it’s a shame, because we feel like we can make a really big difference,” said senior Ari Sasson, one of the event coordinators.

“Wash. U. has such a big Jewish community and we feel like it has the potential to do a lot of good, but it’s not really discussed. Bringing Michael Oren is just one part in this wider initiative,” Sasson added.

The event is cosponsored by  numerous student groups on campus, including the Jewish Student Union, the College Democrats, the College Republicans and the Political Science Student Association (PSSA). Many other community groups are also sponsoring the event.

According to senior Danielle Heiman, another coordinator of the event, so many groups are involved because Oren’s career touches on both the academic sphere and political sphere.

“The importance [of the event] is that it’s showing what we’re talking about doesn’t just necessarily have to do with Israel, but it has to do with general academic areas of interest that most Wash. U. students should be interested in on some level,” Heiman said.

The bipartisan nature of this event is something not often seen on the University’s campus.

The PSSA is serving mostly as a nonpartisan group to facilitate and coordinate the efforts of other groups involved.

According to junior Mark Dudley, president of the PSSA, this is a great way for different campus organizations to collaborate and appeal to a wider range of students.

“[The sponsors of the event] will send a message: This event is open and public discussion. It’s not going to be biased or slanted in anyway,” Dudley said.

Dudley said he hopes the groups can continue to work together after Oren’s visit.

“I hope it’ll be a chance for our four groups to get together not just once but in the future to bring events and speakers to campus. It’s kind of a coming-out for the four of us if you will, together, working on this event,” Dudley said. “I think if you really want to move forward and plan really strong events, the four groups working together with other groups is a great way to get things accomplished that are open to the student body.”

Oren has been a visiting professor at both Harvard and Yale universities and is currently a visiting professor at Georgetown University. He has published works in several national newspapers, including The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.

Oren is the author of two New York Times bestsellers and a fellow at the Shalom Center in Jerusalem. He has also testified before Congress.

Not so, most Washington University organizations said.

One exception to this, as may be expected, regards the University chapter of Students for Barack Obama (SFBO). Although it was never officially sanctioned by Student Union, the group will cease to exist now that the election is over.

Far from transitioning to presidential groupies, however, SFBO hopes that members will continue to be politically engaged through like-minded groups on campus such as the College Democrats.

Though senior Sophie Cohen, the SFBO chapter representative, anticipates that Obama will run for reelection in four years, she did not see the need for a specific group devoted to the cause at this point.

“I imagine in the future, Students for [Barack] Obama will not be in existence but will instead be present under the umbrella of College Democrats due to the absence of the importance of the primaries,” Cohen said.

The College Democrats are embracing this desired collaboration, along with the shared past experience of campaigning for Barack Obama with SFBO. The Democrats are hoping to build upon the grassroots action they employed in the campaign and to act as examples of Obama’s emphasis on public service.

“I think we underestimated the potential of Wash. U. students to vote in Missouri and change local politics,” junior Becky Hufstader, vice president of College Democrats, said. “Hopefully we’ll remember to focus on the student base in future elections.”

College Democrats will also seek to collaborate with like-minded groups, such as Green Action, PRIDE Alliance and Students for Choice. They are also searching for a “currently active political figure, such as an ex-presidential candidate” to bring to campus as a guest speaker, according to Hufstader.

This semester, the College Democrats and the College Republicans will also go head-to-head in Campus Crossfire, a biannual debate held with representatives from political and issue-related groups across campus. The focus this time is expected to be on the failing economy and steps the government is taking to mitigate the financial crisis.

In the coming semester, College Republicans will organize a “troops drive” to encourage monetary donations to troops, as well as some of their own item requests. They may also plan a film screening as an organization activity.

According to Senior Charis Fischer, president of the College Republicans, the organization will try and get another speaker, but it will depend on what kind of money and resources are available.

One organization that felt little impact from the election, however, was the College Libertarians.

“During the primary when Ron Paul was running, there was definitely a heightened interest,” sophomore Jeff Dreifus, co-president of the College Libertarians, said.

Once the former Texas representative dropped out of the running, however, the consensus on a mainstream political candidate was lost. Although some members passed out Ron Paul literature and distributed flyers explaining the candidate’s economic policies, the focus of the College Libertarians remained more discussion-based, rather than focused on action.

“We would be more action-based,” Dreifus said. “But most people dismiss libertarians as kooks anyway.”

Aside from the vice presidential debate, which were arranged by the Washington University administration, two of the most charged political events in recent campus history have been sponsored by the College Republicans who secured funding from Student Union. Despite the fact that many students disagreed with the speakers, the speeches by Alberto Gonzales and Karl Rove attracted significant portions of the student body. Both caused discussion and debate, leading many students to gain a greater under-standing of controversial political decisions.

For their part, the College Democrats have not brought thinkers that have stimulated the same level of dialogue on campus. Though they worked with the Assembly Series to bring in Mo Rocca and helped a significant number of students canvass and volunteer for Obama and other local political campaigns, they have not put on any major event that has stimulated the campus as much as the two sponsored by the College Republicans.

The College Democrats should be working to offer this type of opportunity to students as it has proven to be one of the most effective ways to inform students of political issues. In an opinion-editorial submission defending his decision to approve funding for Karl Rove, Student Union treasurer William Osberghaus wrote, “If the College Democrats would like to bring a large name speaker to campus this semester, I would be fully open to such a possibility. There is only one problem: The College Democrats have yet to appeal for one.” (Student Life, Oct. 31).

Post-election, many students are experiencing a political withdrawal, making this an opportune time to tap into their political sentiments. Both the College Republicans and College Democrats should work to keep students enthused and active. But, there is a specific need for the College Democrats to step up and do their part to keep Washington University students actively connected to current political views. The College Republicans have initiated two major political events during the past year; it’s time for the College Democrats to get to work.

Karl Rove’s appearance on campus a mere 27 hours before the polls closed in Missouri was, whether you enjoyed it or not, a useful educational exercise, not just for the College Republicans who invited him, but for democrats, independents and undecided students. Judging by the line of students stretching beyond the Business School waiting to enter Graham Chapel, the rapt—and occasionally disruptive—attention paid to the speaker, Rove’s appearance was worth the $30,000 paid.

But aside from the experience itself, what of Rove’s words? “The Architect” had a few major points to make on the nature of this election. His most obvious point was about its length, almost twice the length of the Bush vs. Gore campaign in 2000. What resonated most from his talk, though was his pointedly unoptimistic outlook for the future. Both presidential candidates made their way onto the ballot by winning not a majority of Americans but a plurality; when there are several strong contenders on both sides, however, this is to be expected. His evaluations of the vice presidential picks, however, was even more bleak: both Palin and Biden, he said, were chosen not because they would complement their respective presidential candidates, but because they filled a need in each party’s propaganda machine. Rove’s cynicism led the rest of his speech, as he highlighted more or less equally the shortcomings of each party, platform and candidate. His party affiliations came out during a heated attack of Joe Biden, but only after he had finished his written speech.

So what are we supposed to glean from this? The unfortunate truth, as he very clearly suggested—that even the campaign of ‘hope’ and ‘change’ has pandered once in a while, that even the best-looking figures have stooped to a lie, and that Americans continue to gullibly follow along. Rove’s outlook certainly is depressing and supports an alarming decline in our trust of the government—but it is also, perhaps, a much needed dose of reality. Rove’s most fervent assertions, aside from Biden’s ineptitudes, were about the unreliability of polls and news spinners. But his final message was about respecting, loving, and staying loyal to your country. Combined, he’s asking Americans to love their country despite its flaws, but also make the effort to distinguish the truth from all the fluff.

Did Rove do this himself? He can easily point out Democratic deficiencies, but he didn’t shy from discussing Republican shortfalls. Yet he did a fair amount of spinning himself, not just with summary of the vice presidential candidates, but also with his laundry list of Bush accolades. Of course, Rove does not have to be bi-partisan, nor is anyone asking him to be.

What’s missing from his message of awareness, however, is solutions. He declined to comment on if either presidential candidate will successfully handle any of the crises headed our way. Rove has washed his hands of that aspect, and happily so; he’s no longer “Turdblossom,” he’s a journalist; he gets to do the complaining and leave the solutions to someone else. As students who can easily fall into the same trap, we should all remind ourselves that sometimes a bit of cynicism is necessary to keep us aware of our surroundings; however, that’s no reason to abandon the innate endearment of the Rove’s nickname, which reminds us that even out of the foulest cow patty can emerge a flower.

With the presidential campaigns intensifying over these past few weeks, it seems appropriate that Karl Rove, the controversial architect of President Bush’s 2000 and 2004 presidential campaigns, will speak at Washington University on Monday, the eve of Election Day.

For a price of $35,000, the College Republicans have invited Rove, considered by some as master of political and media manipulation, to speak at 5 p.m. in Graham Chapel.

“He is usually credited, or blamed, with having introduced destructive elements into the campaign discourse,” Randall Calvert, professor of political science, said.

Rove currently writes for Fox News and Newsweek as a news analyst, as well as being a contributing columnist for The Wall Street Journal.

Before his career in the media, Rove served as a political advisor and strategist for a number of Republican candidates, including Bush’s presidential campaigns and, as far back as 1994 and 1998/, for Bush’s Texas gubernatorial campaigns.

He also served as deputy chief of staff for Bush until he resigned in 2007 in amid controversy—most notably, the ousting of CIA agent Valerie Plame.

Now Rove informally advises, and has donated $2,300 to, Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign.

Figures in the media have accused Rove of push-polling against McCain’s 2000 Republican presidential primary campaign. The polling suggested that the Arizona senator had fathered an illegitimate black child. In fact, McCain and his wife Cindy had adopted Bridget, a girl from Bangladesh, in 1991.

This year at the Republican National Convention, Rove praised Cindy McCain for adopting Bridget.

According to Calvert, Rove remains a cunning political strategist because he can “get away” with his tactics.

“The phenomenon is that you can engage in various sets of campaign statements of various authenticity and get away with it,” Calvert said. “It worked. It’s not clear to me why it worked, but it worked.”

Although Rove has taken a less visible position this election cycle, his political impact remains apparent, and many media sources have cited McCain’s campaign as Rove’s return to the political sphere.

Steve Schmidt, who worked with Rove on the 2004 Bush campaign and is considered to be his protégé, works as McCain’s senior campaign strategist.

Rove and Schmidt have also been accused of helping to orchestrate the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth advertisements, which criticized 2004 Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry’s personal character and his record of service in the Vietnam War.

“I think the 2004 campaign was much dirtier. The Swift Boat campaign against Kerry and his war record was a truly reprehensible moment in American politics,” Calvert said. “It is well known that they [McCain campaign] employed people that were taught by Rove. McCain used the same type of strategy that they used against him.”

Schmidt’s recent strategies have attempted to link Obama with domestic terrorist organization Weather Underground’s founder Bill Ayers, tie Obama’s policies with socialism and accuse Obama of alleged associations with the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), a non-profit accused of voter fraud.

The McCain campaign has charged that ACORN helped “destroy the fabric of democracy.”

According to Calvert, Rove’s involvement—direct and indirect—in this election cycle, could bear serious implications for the management of future campaigns.

“I think there is some possibility that this election may have a potential impact on whether future campaigns encourage the way Rove runs campaigns,” Calvert said.

College Republicans President Charis Fischer, a senior, who called Rove a “brilliant political mind,” said she spoke to him on the phone about his speech. Fischer said Rove’s speech will present a non-partisan analysis of both campaigns this election cycle.

 “The analysis is going to be similar to what you would hear from him if you watch him on Fox News—it’s going to be relatively objective,” Fischer said. “He is going to talk about what were the good strategies of both candidates, and what would he have done. We are basically stealing him from the major news networks.”

However, Fischer said that during the question-answer session after the speech, he will answer questions more candidly if approached with a partisan question.

Calvert recommended that students attending the event listen to what he has to say, but arrive with a understanding of Rove and his politics.

“I would hope that you go into the knowing speech that there is a guy who has known to say just about anything to get his point across,” Calvert said.

Calvert agreed with Fischer that, as a commentator, Rove does at times present non-partisan analyses.

“He has been somewhat consistent in playing the role of commentator even if it is the role of Fox commentator,” he said. “He could stick to that [in his speech]. If he is trying to stick to a career as a commentator it would be a good idea.”

She didn’t want to incur the wrath of some closed-minded liberals on campus, who, in recent times, have become as intolerant as the people liberals themselves fought during the civil rights era. Sarah’s fear is understandable and relatable.

Let me clarify: I have found that the vast majority of the Democratic supporters are respectable and kind despite our differences of opinion. That Thursday of the vice presidential debate, in the pushy crowd with liberal students all around me, many of them allowed me to hold up a sign without trying to block it, and I returned the favor. We were able to have pleasant discussions about current political issues. I appreciate those who can acknowledge our differences of opinion without disrespecting or demonizing them.

This leads me to the topic of those who were a disgrace and simply too overzealous in silencing all dissenting opinions on campus. One girl, for example, tried to get on a guy’s back to block my yellow sign. At the time, I was toward the back, and other Obama signs were blocking most of my sign anyways. One kid put a sign next to mine saying, “I’m with stupid.” The worst was when a friend of mine who is in my fraternity and is an Obama supporter was given stickers by an older man and told to somehow put them on my sign. My friend told me what the man instructed him to do, showed me the stickers and then dropped them. A woman from Planned Parenthood threw a condom at me (an obvious student group, right?). All of this surprisingly occurred during the first broadcast of “Hardball.”

I also feel the need to set the record straight on a few other things that occurred during the event. First, there was a lot of controversy surrounding the half-dozen older Republican supporters holding those yellow signs. What Student Life left out of their report and their interview with me was that the liberals also had older supporters in the crowd, and probably many more than we did. The guy that gave my friend the stickers to put on my sign was easily in his mid-thirties. Now if you want proof that older Democrats were doing the same, I took pictures of quite a few union workers in the crowd (Obama supporters of course). The union is called the IUPAT (or the AFL-CIO), and they slipped in just as easily as those infamous Republicans. I am sure those union workers were not students, but why were they not reported about in Student Life? I think I have an answer to that question: Republicans stand out and are such a minority that when a student sees an older Republican, it stands out much more than a middle-aged Democrat. Oh, did I mention the “Rednecks for Obama”?

That entire day was probably one of the most demoralizing times for me as a Republican. Liberals who are so strongly in favor of such ideas as gay rights, affirmative action and fair wages were shown also to be the biggest hypocrites. They are in favor of equality and freedom of speech for the small minorities, but when the small minority happens to disagree with their goals, they are instantly attacked and silenced. It is truly sad when a small amount of liberal extremists begin to practice exactly what they fought against during the Jim Crow era and the gay rights movement. These new agents of intolerance are a small but extremely vocal group of liberals.

Before I stopped talking to Sarah, as she was helping the CNN bus, she told me one small thing that will stay with me for a while. She said, “Maybe tonight I will wear a red shirt…” If only she could do that and not be ridiculed or ostracized for her beliefs.

(Some names have been changed to protect individuals’ identities, but the events appear exactly as they happened.)