Senator HagridOfTheDeep—Nyman Office

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—Campaign Launch—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Hi all! Welcome to my campaign office here in the lovely city of North Myrtle Beach!

In light of TJ’s recent plans to retire from the senate, a number of folks have urged me to jump into the at-large senate race. Maybe it’s the meds from my wisdom teeth extractions talking, but I’ve decided to go for it. Thus, I am honoured to announce that I will be running for a spot in the Atlasian senate. This will be my campaign headquarters—there’s some butterbeer in the fridge and some rock cakes on the table, so make yourselves at home.

I’m a bit new to Atlasia, but I’m eager to roll up my sleeves and get talking about some of the issues facing our country. I’m currently serving as a legislator in the IDS, and I gotta say—It’s been hugely rewarding getting to know the great folks in my region. Hopefully I’ll get the chance to hear from some new faces across the country as well.

As many of you know, I’m one of those dreaded “unapologetic conservatives” in the Whig Party . But with God as my witness, I am proud to be a Whig. Yeah—I may hold some of those controversial socially conservative beliefs, but I’m here to say that I believe there are much more pressing issues to deal with. I’ll vote for life every time, but I plan to push an agenda of economic freedom and responsibility.

We’re not going to agree on everything. But win or lose, this campaign will be a great learning experience. To be blunt, I started off on the 2012 board as, well, a bit of a hack—I’m not proud of it, but I’m working on it. During the course of this campaign, I want to hear your concerns and questions. I’m willing to do the reading and I’m excited to offer you the best answers I can.

The most important message I want to leave you with is this: I’m not here to be an ideologue. I’m here to find common ground and get things done. Watching the grace and thoughtfulness of Senator Redalgo has taught me a lot, and if I can aspire to carry myself as senator with even a fraction of his character, I think we’ll all come out on top. And that’s what I pledge to do.  

I’ll elaborate more on some of my positions later. But for now, thanks for this opportunity. I hope you’ll give me a chance and follow my campaign!

Best of luck to my colleagues in the race,

Hagrid

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Ah! Lot's to get to here. Let's get started.

I am proud to endorse you... what a great slate of candidates except for that old fart clarence!

Thanks, clarence! And I wouldn't be so hard on yourself—y'ain't that bad.  

Aw, Hagrid, you're not a hack. But I still won't endorse you.[/Laborhack]

You win some, you lose some, haha. And thanks for those words re: hackage. But honestly, I really did start off pretty horribly. Either way, it’s been a fun journey.

Anyhow, I hope things are going well in the Northeast!

Well I guess my Senate dreams are over.

Well… the choice is yours. You’d be a fine senator. Though for obvious reasons, I’d love if you waited till next time.

Endorsed!

Hopefully it won't be a net negative for you.

Thank you kindly! I hope so too. If things don't go so well here, I'll have the IDS to turn to. It’s a great gig. Still, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t believe I could better serve Atlasia as a senator. I'm really enjoy reading the discussion going on over there, and the teamwork that goes on is fantastic.

Your foreign policy and general, and towards Iran in particular?

Thanks for the question. I have a long answer prepared, so I don’t want to mash it in with the above banter. I’ll include it below in a single post. Hope it will clarify some of my positions for you.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Now to get to your question, SJoyceFla... I was preparing for this one.

—Notes on Foreign Policy—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Generally, I believe it is our foremost responsibility to promote democracy in our foreign policy. Democratic nations respect the role of their citizens in shaping government, and democratic countries overwhelmingly extend more freedoms to their people than do their dictatorship counterparts. I’m not much in the business of nation-building as much as I’m for exercising the principle of smart power. Diplomacy is a powerful tool in agenda-setting.

Thus, we should actively seek positive relationships with those countries that are friendly to democracy and human rights. Atlasian foreign aid should be restructured around the principle that best sees money going to nations that are willing to trust their citizens. Conversely, power-hungry dictatorships deny rights to their people and are dangerously corrupt—I would be careful to make sure that we do not seem to endorse the ideologies of these countries.

Unfortunately, Iran, which you mentioned, is one of these countries. While in name Iran is a republic, it’s more of a theocracy: the President has little power, and any candidate wishing to run must first be approved by a Guardian Council. That ain’t putting power in the hands of the people—it’s propping up a dangerous “revolution” set on the destruction of Israel. I know that’s a contentious statement, but I believe the evidence is clear: President Ahmadinejad appears at “World Without Zionism” conferences, calls for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” and insists that Israel is an “occupying force.” What else could one interpret from this dangerous rhetoric?

Couple this seeming affinity for Israeli genocide with Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and we’ve got the potential for nuclear war. So to be absolutely clear, I am appalled that Vice President Kalwejt has opened formal diplomatic channels with Iran. If, as our intelligence suggests, the Iranians have developed working nuclear bombs, we are surely on borrowed time. The corrupt government of Iran sponsors terrorist groups like Hezbollah and Hamas—these groups pose direct dangers Israel, one of our closest allies. Moreover, one organization funded by Iran, the Islamic Jihad Movement in Palestine, is directly responsible for at least thirty suicide bombings. Clearly, these are groups of people who are not afraid to die in the name of obliterating Judaism. So why should we expect the concept of nuclear deterrence to have any weight with Iran? These people will launch nuclear attacks if we cannot preempt them.

Additionally, I pose this question: Are Iranian nukes secure? If, in fact, the official government of Iran chooses not to launch their bombs, how can we guarantee that these weapons won’t fall into more dangerous hands? It is for this reason that I reluctantly supported Senator clarence’s proposal to launch a military offensive in Iran.

We must continue to impose sanctions against Iran, we must continue to support Israel and offer them security guarantees, we must strengthen our anti-missile defences, and we must neutralize Iranian nukes. The initial military offensive I support is not one of a full-frontal nature with surges and tanks—it’s a smaller-scaled operation that would hopefully bring down the government quickly, with the help of locals. After all, none of us want nuclear warheads flying through the skies. If such an offensive is impossible, certainly we need to maintain our intelligence initiatives and launch cyber-attacks. By all accounts, the situation is escalated. Now is the time to contain it.

I doubt we are on the same page here, SJoyceFla, but I hope you can appreciate my reasoning. Sorry to spend so long on this!

Before I go though, I do want to reiterate my support for diplomacy wherever possible, and touch on one foreign policy prong that I think we need to expand. Namely, I have always believed that it is of paramount importance to champion women’s rights on the international stage. I know the two of us could go down this path and get into a debate over abortion, but that’s not what I’m intending here. Securing a woman’s basic right to vote, equal pay, and equal opportunity (especially regarding access to education) is, I believe, the best way to solve many of the problems currently facing the Third World. Imagine what we could do for the AIDS pandemic in Africa if women had more control over their lives and were more educated about contraceptives and STDs. A sustainable Africa needs strong women and lower birth rates—these are things we can achieve with smart power. More importantly, these are things we can achieve without exercising an overly-interventionist foreign policy. I am happy that we have a strong ambassador in Cathcon to carry out this type of work.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

SJoyce, I’ll try to address the spirit of what you’re getting at here...

—More on the Iranian Regime—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

For one, to outright deny the existence of the “wiped off the map” controversy is to ignore one side of a very contentious debate. While official translations released by the Iranians would seem to double-back on Ahmadinejad’s rhetoric, there is no absolute “right answer” to exactly what the president said. What is known is that the comments were made at a “World Without Zionism” conference. What is known is that even wiping away Israel, the geopolitical entity, would hugely deepen the Jewish diaspora. What is known is that Iran sponsors anti-Semitic terrorist groups who have been intent on perpetrating “martyrdom” in the name of their cause.

While the president and supreme leader have made comments alluding to their support of Palestine’s right to include Jews in a new territory, that admission is not conceding much. Such a decision would come about from a referendum in the midst of toxic rhetoric, violence, and corruption. Khamenei and Ahmadinejad’s comments are more political than truthful—their actions overwhelmingly rebuke their words. As for Iran’s perception of Israel as an occupying force… I suppose it is as much an occupying force as Canada is an occupying force in the North. The country occupies that land, but the words “occupying force” don’t exactly have a warm connotation. They’re not synonymous for “sovereign nation,” which is exactly what Israel is.

Now to your next point: The Iranians may not be stupid—but they do represent a theocracy with deep-rooted hate and, as I said above, anti-Semitism. You’re placing an awful lot of faith in the leaders of Iran by expecting rational action. Some would perceive Ahmadinejad’s sponsorship of suicide bombings as evidence of a more reckless streak than you give him credit for. Moreover, the intricacies of Iran’s relationships with terrorist groups make an Israeli response less-predictable than you assume. If an agenda of “wiping Israel off the map” does exist, providing nukes to an entity like the Islamic Jihad Movement could create enough degrees of separation between Iran and the bombing of Israel to prevent Netanyahu from responding in kind. Honest democracies are under many more constraints than sham democracies like Iran. That’s exactly why it is in Atlasia’s interest to preempt a nuclear attack rather than have to respond to one.

As for this comment from Ahmadinejad: “creating an objection against the Zionists doesn't mean that there are objections against the Jewish”— I would trust individuals to decide for themselves whether or not that’s doublespeak. To me, it pretty clearly is. It’s nuancing a hate that just cannot be nuanced.

Addressing another of your questions—why do Jewish parties occupy seats in government? Because their representation is so small and unthreatening that allowing them to exist is likely more politically expedient for the regime than not. Why incite insurrection in your own country when it can be put on the backburner for later?

To sidetrack for a moment, you questioned how we could make use of nuclear deterrence without diplomatic channels. First, I’d like to say that I believe the concept of nuclear deterrence is inherently flawed when it comes to Iran—we may disagree, but this belief is coming from my conviction that Iran is just absolutely intent on eliminating Israel. Secondly, soft power with the press can easily sub-in for what little headway would be accomplished in an open diplomatic relationship. Publicly, our leaders must maintain that any aggression from Iran would illicit an immediate response from Atlasia (or Israel), even if such a response would be unrealistic. Either way, I do not believe this should be our “end-all” with respect to Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Now, about the security of Iranian nukes: Thank you for pointing out an oversight on my part. Obviously any operation against Iran would have the primary goal of securing whatever WMDs exist. Regime change would be a tactic—a catalyst, if you will—to make that happen. I meant to include that in my original comments.

Regarding Pakistan, their unsecured weapons are certainly a concern. It would seem that Pakistan harboured Osama bin Laden for years, so the Pakistani government is obviously connected to terrorism. Still, I’d argue that the threat with Iran is more pressing—while there are unique challenges with Pakistan, Pakistan exhibits more of a love-hate relationship with Israel, at least according to Ayesha Siddiqa, one political commentator in Pakistan. Israel is not much concerned about Pakistan, and there has actually been some important intelligence cooperation between the two countries. Thus, the difference between Pakistan and Iran is clear: Iran quite forcibly isolates its hate against one country—Israel. Pakistan does not.

SJoyceFla—Again, I’m really sorry for the ridiculous length of these posts. I just want to make sure my opinions are clear. In all honestly, I don’t really see us reconciling our beliefs on this topic . I’ll keep talking about Iran if you’d like, but I can see us going in circles pretty fast.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I will be giving you a high preference.

Thanks.
It's a pleasure to have you on board.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks to 20RP12 and ZuWo for the kind words.

If anyone has more questions, I'm happy to take them. I figure it's a good way to guide the campaign.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thank you for your follow-up, and I must say, I agree with quite a bit of your commentary. Where we disagree, obviously, is how to respond to the realities on the ground.

This response will cover many things I have already said, so I don’t intend to release it as an official policy statement. Please don’t interpret this as an effort to shut down the discourse.

Regarding the translations of Ahmadinejad’s comments at the World Without Zionism conference: I have conceded that his comments were contentious. Thank you for pointing me to other translations, just as I, of course, could point you to translations from the New York Times or the Iranian presidential website, both of which use the “wiped off the map” wording. Still, I don’t believe this phrase is the fundamental issue at-hand. As I stated, I believe anti-Zionism is a nuanced form of anti-Semitism that should be taken as a serious threat. And, again, even eliminating the sovereign country Israel from “the page of time” would be a devastating blow to Judaism and the Jewish people as a whole.

As for myself, I could not profess to know exactly why 40,000 individual Jews would choose to live in any one area (and that is the high-end estimate—most sources put the number closer to 25,000). I am sure many of those Jews have deep-rooted connections to Persia and for that reason alone would not wish to leave their homeland. Many Jews also stayed in Nazi Germany during the 1930s and 40s despite obvious pressures working against them. Such pressures do exist in Iran: Jews may be able to practice their religion, but the government severely limits their movements in and out of the country (entire families cannot leave at once, international trips must be given clearance, and Jews often have to pay to leave).

This oppression would also be present in any Palestinian territory created on Israeli land by means of a referendum. Of course I agree that all peoples (though I’d amend that to “nations”) have the right to self-determination—including the Israelis. President Ahmadinejad has stated that it would be up to a sovereign Palestine to decide on the role of Jews in its society. I believe his support for this self-determination is contingent on his belief that Jews would never end up being afforded the rights of first-class citizens.

That 25,000 Jews in Iran are not first-class citizens is evidence enough of this belief. I would also push back against your assertion that it would be “relatively easy” to eliminate such a small number of Jews. The small Jewish population would make it much easier for Jews to blend into society and hide if such a need ever arose. This same concept would be present with any Israeli counter-attack against the Islamic Jihad Movement or Hamas. How can any effective attack be launched against such a small group that does not adhere to the traditional conventions of war? After all, the Western response to 9/11 has not seen the defeat of al-Qaeda. By all means, an Israeli response is not as predictable as Netanyahu would have the world believe.

So why hasn’t Iran used its bombs? Perhaps a launch system has not been perfected. Perhaps plans between the Iranian government and paramilitary groups have not yet been cemented. I cannot be sure. To be honest, I’ll provide a bit of a cop-out here and say that I do not agree with the way “Atlasia, the game” has been executed regarding this issue. The Game Moderator should have direct control over developments in Iran and other foreign countries. I would be interested in exploring legislation to cement this role and limit the SoEA’s activities to publicly lobbying the GM.

Regarding Pakistan: I understand your concerns. We need to maintain intelligence operations in the area to ensure our security. However, I still believe that Iran offers more challenges because of its extremely public opposition to Israel.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Hopefully there are no problems, SJoyce. I'm feelin' ya about this medical sh**t though. If anyone ever tells you to get your wisdom teeth out when you're older, call them a fool and run out. There's only so many mashed potatoes a person can take.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

My condolences.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Awesome. Read it all, and I don't really have too much to add to what you've said. I'd emphasize though that decrying Zionism is a little bit different than decrying capitalism, mostly for the reason that Zionism is not singularly political. It is an ideology centred on Jewish nationalism, so there are certainly some complex undercurrents behind anti-Zionist beliefs. Those undercurrents involve anti-Semitism.

I also agree that, in the event of a two-state solution, a large portion of Jews would certainly head over to Israel and many Muslims would move to Palestine. Still, sense of place is a strong force that sometimes trumps rationality. As such, I could forsee a minority of each population remaining in the sovereign country that would seem to be at odds with the group's religious lifestyle. One group being allowed to exist as a minority in the other country would not automatically mean that the local political leadership was amicable towards the minority.

And yes, al-Qaeda has been weakened. But I would still call it a very active organization with enough of a wide-reaching membership to continue propagating violence. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the PIJ could survive a counter-attack, and surviving members would not necessarily have to stay in Gaza. Neither of us, I don't think, are interested in a second "War on Terror," so I believe it's best to take the nuclear weapons out of play before such a situation could arise. I understand the logistics of attacking Iran are more forboding than the logistics of attacking Iraq. Still, I have faith that our special forces could swifty accomplish Atlasian mission objectives with a smaller contingency of soldiers and a more covert plan of action.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Endorsed!

Thanks, Pingvin! 

Well, not all of the undercurrents; at least to me, it seems pretty hard for the Haredi Jews to be counted as anti-Semites, given that they're Jews and all. Some of them are, but some of them aren't.

Sure. Fortunately for my original argument, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a Haredi Jew.

I’ll make an official statement on Israel-Palestine shortly. I appreciate the question.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—Israeli-Palestinian Tensions—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Israel is a close ally of Atlasia, and its status as a stable democracy makes it an important beacon of hope in the Middle East. Israel affords its people the basic rights of human dignity and liberty—as such, it is important for us, as representatives of a likeminded country, to stand by Israel. Our partnership has a long history. Thus, should outside parties threaten Israel’s sovereignty with violence or bloodshed, we must be willing to fulfill our commitments to Israel. Hamas, Hezbollah, the Islamic Jihad Movement, and even the government of Iran pose serious dangers to the stability of this region.

That being said, Palestinian claims to land currently within Israel are understandable—in fact, I believe a rational compromise between the Israelis and Palestinians is the only way to temper regional tensions. A two-state solution similar to the one outlined in the Geneva Accord represents this sort of compromise. More specifically, I do believe a small number of 1-for-1 land swaps (beyond the Israeli surrender of the West Bank, Golan Heights, and Gaza Strip) could potentially satisfy both parties. It would help ensure that areas with a dense Jewish population remained in Israel, while Muslim-majority areas could be incoroporated into a new Palestine. Either way, I am in-line with the 2000 Clinton Parameters in believing that the Palestinians must be willing to waive their perceived “right of return” for any solution to have a lasting impact.

The above are, to me, preferable talking points for our diplomats to promote on the international stage. Importantly, though, I want to make it clear that tensions between Israel and Palestine are not ours to solve. While Atlasia may, in the future, be willing to act as a moderator between both groups, Israel and Palestine must ultimately be responsible for reaching their own compromise. We will help defend Israel against terror if need be—but we will not determine its affairs.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Neither, actually! Wouldn’t you know it, but the construction company with the Hogwarts contract couldn’t build anything bigger that close to the forest—EPA said something about an “endangered unicorn population.”

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I'd really like to thank the above few posters for their support. It means a lot to me, and it's awesome to have y'all on board. JCL–your work in the Mideast has been admirable. Hope things are going well with your initiative against human trafficking.

Sure. Fortunately for my original argument, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is not a Haredi Jew.

Or is he?

Touché.

Either way, I am in-line with the 2000 Clinton Parameters in believing that the Palestinians must be willing to waive their perceived “right of return” for any solution to have a lasting impact.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What about the ICCPR and Resolution 194?

I’m aware of the mobility rights afforded to everyone via the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but the Palestinian Right of Return is too complex to simply be described as the right to freely move within and between countries. Of course I believe Palestinians and Israelis should be allowed to live wherever they can find a home. Domestic laws would obviously dictate such issues (laws which each state has the right to create without interference), but an open and fair system is preferable.

What is not preferable is the idea of Palestinian refugees re-entering their old territory, re-claiming occupied property, and displacing current citizens. I understand that many Palestinians were forced out of their homes unwillingly in 1948. Perhaps, had a solution come about sooner, it would have been reasonable and feasible to see those refugees return to their homes. Now, 64 years later, Jewish families are established in these homes—families who may have had nothing to do with the original displacement of Palestinians. Why create another refugee problem?  

These Palestinian claims are legitimate, but they do not represent a sacred right. They are ambit claims that should be treated as such in a negotiation process.

Palestinians should, however, have access to holy structures, and the new Palestinian state should encompass as much holy land as possible without shortchanging Israel (Resolution 194 partly discusses this concept). As I said earlier, 1-for-1 land exchanges could be helpful here. Generally, though, too much time has passed between Proposition 194 and today for the document’s recommendations to remain practical. Importantly, Proposition 194 is not legally binding, as it was a General Assembly resolution and did not come from the Security Council.

The bottom line is this—no progress will be made if Palestinians maintain their right of return. 50% of Palestinians actually agreed with the Clinton Parameters, which made the same case I am currently making. Both sides need to be willing to compromise.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I love all this support! Keep it coming!

Supersonic–I'll answer your question in my next post as a campaign statement. It'll be very similar to my opening statements in the At-Large Senate debate (if not identical). More details will be forthcoming.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Supersonic—here’s a brief outline of what I’d like to pursue in the senate.

—My Priorities as Senator—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

I’m not a bill-writing-extraordinaire, but what I do provide is thoughtful discussion to the legislative process. My forte involves investigating the details of bills and making sure no concern is left unaddressed. A good guiding question is this: Will the provision achieve what it’s been set out to achieve? It’s with this process that I try to be a consensus-builder, not a partisan ideologue.

Still, I consider myself to be a conservative and communitarian. As public servants, it’s our job to fight for the best interests of our communities—to preserve the foundational family unit, to foster pragmatic change when necessary, and to make sure individuals have the freedom to succeed.

In that regard, I think it’s important to strengthen our defenses at home and our diplomacy abroad. I’d also be interested in re-evaluating Atlasia’s foreign aid commitments—our system should prioritize countries with better human rights records, and we need to make sure aid actually gets to the people who need it. Domestically, we ought to be looking at some serious tax breaks for small businesses.

I’ve also considered drafting something of a “Regional Bill of Rights.” Regions should be guaranteed autonomy over certain policy areas like education. A Regional Bill of Rights would clarify these jurisdictions and re-affirm Atlasia’s commitment to regional rights.

Game reform: It doesn’t need to be extensive, but clarifying the role of the game moderator is something the senate should look into. For example, I believe it’s no one but the GM’s duty to dictate the actions of foreign governments. As a diplomat, the SoEA should lobby the GM towards the administration’s foreign policy objectives.

I hope to go into a bit more detail on these objectives over the course of my campaign. For now, I hope this answers your question.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Glad to see we're on the same page.

I also echo this statement from your campaign office:

I prefer to focus on issues where I can make progress and get things done rather than taking an ideological stance and wasting everyone's time.

I am very pro-life and I do support traditional marriage, but these are stances that I don't believe Atlasia is ready to embrace. Might as well try to pursue areas of common ground.

And wiggle in those traditional values with a little more subtlety.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks, Reaganfan!

I urge everyone to check out the debate we're having over in this thread. I'll be releasing many of my responses as official campaign statements. Stay tuned.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—Stimulating the Atlasian Economy—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

The first thing we’ve got to do is lower taxes across the board. Specifically (but not exclusively), I think it’s morally and economically reprehensible that we are robbing some Atlasians of 50% of their income. The effects of lower taxes would be two-fold: For one, we’d be giving more money back to the citizens to contribute to our economy (which would create jobs and provide the government with more corporate tax revenues); and secondly, our higher-income job-creators would be free to invest more money in business. I could go on and on about the carbon tax, but I’ll leave my opinion on that up to your imagination.

I also think we’ve got to continue sending a clear signal to the world that we are a fiscally responsible nation. In that regard, I think the Saving Over Spending Act is a positive step forward. I understand that spending cuts need to go hand-in-hand with my favoured tax cuts… By eliminating frivolous expenditures like the Atlasian National Broadcaster, I’m confident we’ll be able to sustain lower tax rates. A record of stability will show entrepreneurs that Atlasia is a safe place to do business. Manufacturing jobs can return to this country.

There’s one more thing I want to touch on here: The Corporate Clean Energy Credit. It’s a good idea, and we need to expand on it. Maybe I’ll be departing from my party on this one, but I really think we should be offering tax credits to businesses that market green technologies. These incentives will keep prices down, grow the market, create jobs, and help the environment.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—On Mustafinism-Komovism—
Legislator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Она является приемлемым. Они богинь.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I’d normally wait until the morning to do this, but I’ve gotta wake up pretty early for a four-day camping trip. So here goes…

—Victory for Atlasia!—
Senator-Elect  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

The polls have closed, the ballots have been cast, and the fate of this race has been sealed. Although the official results haven’t been published, my count shows some fantastic news: We won. With your help, Senator clarence and I can lay claim to two very hard-fought victories for the Whig Party. What an exciting election this has been!

First and foremost, I’d like to thank everyone for putting up with private message after private message—I couldn’t have done it without you, and I appreciate all your support. I'm very thankful for the faith you’ve put in me, and I promise I won’t let you down. Additionally, I want to thank the folks who were so helpful behind the scenes (you know who you are, and I owe you a lot), as well as the people who dropped into my campaign office to ask me questions. I learned some new things, and it’s been an extraordinary experience. I’m ready to head to the senate and help get this country turned around.

Now, this race was never going to be easy—there were some very formidable candidates. I want to thank them for the spirited campaign and extend my personal congratulations to the other victors: Marokai Blue, clarence, Bacon King, and NVTownsend. I haven’t been around all that long, but I think the high turnout in this election speaks volumes… Atlasia is in the midst of a Renaissance. Let’s keep this enthusiasm going!

On a more serious note, I also recognize that a number of folks didn’t put me anywhere near their top five preferences—and that’s okay. I ran on the promise that I wouldn’t push a socially conservative agenda; I will keep that promise. As an At-Large Senator, I’m acutely aware that I won’t just be representing any one group, but that I’ll be representing the entire electorate as whole. To the folks who didn’t vote for me: Fear not—I’m no radical. I hope I can earn your trust over the next few months.

So with that, I have one last thing I want to say: To steal a line from Willard, I believe our best days are still ahead of us. Unemployment may be high and events in the Middle East may be troubling… but we are a strong-willed people with the determination and ingenuity to accomplish anything. So once the victory parties have ended and the liquor’s run dry, let’s put our best foot forward. We have a lot of work to do.

Thank you again for your support. It means the world to me.

Hagrid

[HagridOfTheDeep]

Thanks, Napoleon. I hope so too.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

I appreciate your action on this issue, Mr. President, but doesn't our constitution stipulate that senatorial election procedures are to be decided by the senate?

Either way, I'd still like to keep the Election Do-Over Act in the queue to see what becomes of it. If it needs to be changed into an amendment, so be it. I'd also be willing to consider the procedure outlined in your executive order. We'll see what happens on the senate floor.

I'm glad you agree that this is an issue the government should address.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

If it needs to be changed into an amendment, so be it. [...] We'll see what happens on the senate floor.

Your order may help reduce instances of mistakes like the one we've presently seen, but it does not provide any solution for what we do if a mistake is actually made. I think we need a clear process, and I don't care how complex the legislation has to be to make it happen.

[HagridOfTheDeep]

—On Recent Tensions—
Senator  HAGRIDoftheDEEP

Constituents—

My public outreach efforts over the course of my term have not been as intensive as I was hoping, and I’d first like to apologize for that. I’ve been working on a rundown of my voting history in the senate to be published shortly. Not everyone will agree with my reasons for voting “aye” or “nay,” but I believe it can’t hurt for everyone to at least understand why I voted the way I voted. You can expect this memo sometime in the coming weeks.

Right now, however, I feel compelled to join the chorus of my fellow Atlasians taking a stand against President Napoleon’s attitude towards the senate. In the last few days, the president has attempted to overturn two laws outside the specified time required for a veto to be considered legitimate. Not only do I profoundly disagree with his intention to veto the Late-Term Abortion Restriction Act and the Right Wages for the Right Regions Act, but it’s becoming increasingly clear that he purposely waited until what he believed was the last minute to veto these bills, for no other reason than to cause chaos and discord. This is not the job of the president. I will not stand behind this morally corrupt approach to governing. The president of Atlasia should be a communicator and conciliator—we are not seeing Napoleon take on these roles, and I am disappointed that he has resorted to spiteful vetoes instead of working with the senate to find common ground on some issues and to compromise on others.

Unfortunately, this attitude has characterized much of President Napoleon’s tenure: It is disappointing that he refused to address SoIA Morgieb’s pitiful job performance; it is disappointing that he has not yet responded to requests for aid from regions affected by Superstorm Sandy; it is disappointing that he has not submitted his profile to the Midwest’s Wisard Extraordinær; and it is disappointing that he continues to use a warped interpretation of our constitution to get what he wants. I did not vote for Napoleon, and I am not surprised by these actions—it makes me sad, however, that he seems so content to let down those Atlasians who did offer him their support. I urge everyone who is upset with the president’s attitude of obstruction and inaction to voice their concerns.

It’s time to tell the president that selfish games are not what we want in a leader.

Hagrid