Blogging for grades

I thought this blogging idea is great way to relay thoughts and opinions on the selected topic. The feel is a touch on the informal side, which is a break from the structured setup I'm used to, and therefore, I feel I can reflect my thoughts on a broader scale. My only concern was the comments part. Since a blog is due by 6 pm on Weds, I felt that the due time for comments should have been due on Thurs by 6. This gives everyone a day to review each blog, instead of relying on the people that get there blogs done way ahead of schedule. Or have blogs completed by Tues. at 6. In addition, blogging also gives us an easy access to the web and we have the ability to back up our opinions with the most recent news, or obscure historical data. As far as my blog is concerned, I would probably rate around a B to C+ range. I know the comments killed my grade, but I enjoyed talking about issues, past and current, and felt I could put together a somewhat coherant thought.

Sorting in recent elections

Has tha rgument for sorting been strengthened or weakened in recent elections? Fiorina has claimed in his book that voters who think alike usually vote alike. I have evidence in the 2008 presidential election is not be the case, as many voters were split on important issues to them. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26843704 For example, when asked if the voter was worried about another terrorist attack on US soil, 70% responded that they were at least somewhat worried. With Fiorinia's claim that voters think alike, vote alike, one candidate would be the clear cut winner on this issue. But the numbers tell us a different story. Of the people who are worried about anther terrorist attack, 50% voted for McCain and 48% voted for Obama. Voters who held terrorism as important could not agree upon who could prevent this from happening again. To further dismantle Fiorinia's argument, voters, when asked about potential Supreme Court appointees, 74% said that the nomination power was a factor in capturing their vote. An alomst even split occurs once again, with Obama gathering 54 % of the vote compared to 48 % towards McCain. Finally, when asked if the economy was good or poor, 93% said poor and the vote was split again, 54% voted for Obama while 44 % voted for McCain.

So what does this all mean? Well, to be honest, I'm not sure yet, so we need to keep digging. The next question I have: Have polarized activists subsoquently fueled sterotpyical sentiments onto the American public, therefore subconsciously implanting trigger phrases about each party, even though most of America is unpolar? Hopefully, I can clarify what that mess of question means. Fironia brings up the notion of George W. winning in 2000, through the help of a "fatigued public towards Clinton". He also states that Bush the elder lost his reelction bid due to his failed promises and a rival candidate who brought middle America back to the forefront. I believe Fiorinia is correct, saying that most of the American public is middle of the ground. But if this were true, would issues really matter versus how a candidate is percieved or how job performance is rated? With voter ideaology being centrist, wouldnt a voter play a give and a take game, therefore canceling out most issues? For example, voter A is in favor of gun control, inheritence tax cuts, Iraq and abortion. Pretty centrist for sake of argument, but what pushes this voter to vote the way they will end up deciding? This is where candidate likability and current regime satisifaction come into play. With the numbers above, votes tilted toward Obama because the current administration was failing. If the hot issue this election was the economy, and only 4 points above majority believed Obama to turn it around, why did the American public almost turn it into a coin flip and eventually lean towards Obama? This is why I believe that the majority of the American public can go either way on most issues, but the key to gathering votes in based on current administration job perception and candidate perception.

Build a Party Project

Our party strengths: In theory, our party will appeal to the growing attitudes of the changing nation. Environmental friendly policies dominate our platform, which in the long run, will benefit both mankind and mother nature. Clean lungs and water have never hurt anyone. Second, our party will be fronted will some of the most recognizable and relatable politicains on Capitol Hill. Strong party leadership and name recognition will fuel the sentiments surronding these charasmatic leaders into the minds of the potential voting populus. Finally, our base or core supporters should establish the sound foundation needed to further develop our parties growth throughout the US. Our base is the South, which traditionally is a stronghold for the right wing. With the reeling Republican party, South voters may be looking for a new identity for their political views, and this party, already closer to the right than the left, looks to capitalize on the new found opportunity for voter identification.
Weaknesses: How big can we get a revenue stream in order to pay for all these government backed programs? New health research, new tecnological fuel research, and further tax cuts will require new avenues of funding. With some many former Republicans lined up to be initiated to our party, will these new prgrams be an easy sell? With the financial cost on green technologies higher than traditional methods, how will new companies be able to afford start up costs, and eventually expand and create new jobs? Dont get me wrong; Im all for the environment, but I just wonder how the cost will be divided up, especially in an economy teetering on the big D word. Secondly, I wonder how bailing out the American auto makers will stabilize the national economy. Wouldnt these companies just be better off filing chapter 11? or at least start jet pooling? Why should the federal governement invest billions in a failing company, when in a few months, that money will be gone anyway? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/opinion/19romney.html?_r=4 is a great article by Romney. Finally, the only other weakness, in my opinion and this is strictly a viewpoint, is the stem cell research. I am not a fan of it. I believe its to close to playing God with human life and I dont trust mankind to handle such a powerful technology in a responsible and secure way.

Viewing all the groups platforms, I conclude that most, if not all, are roughly on the same viewpoint path. Most parties are centrised based, with stress on the environment, health, and ending the Irag war. Competing for the high office for all groups was in the wheel house of 8-10 years, which may be a bit too soon, but with rise of the information age, anything is possible. I also found it interesting that some groups are in favor of the turn of the 19th century politics, ie isolatioism.

If any of group 4's members read this, I apologize for my lack of input. I was really looking forward to this idea but I can down with pnumonia and, subsequently, my wife and 3 month old daughter came down with bronchitis for the past few weeks. I know how frustrating group work can be and I let the group down; I take responsibility for this and I'm sure my grade will reflect this. Working in groups over the net, I found, is challenging. Coordination efforts must be met on everyone's side in order to be effective. Messages can be left and viwed at any time, but I prefer the more efficient method of face to face interaction to fully gather all the input of everyone involved. Finally, over the net is also very faceless and almost soulless. Instead of matching a face to the words and get that personal image in your head, you have to conjure up what this person is really all about.

Whats the deal with Joe Lieberman?

Is Joe Lieberman a democrat? I believe yes. Here are my two points. 1) Just by sheer voting record, one could conclude that Joe is a dem., citing this sample voting record: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/members/l000304/votes/
Of the 98 eligible voting issues, Lieberman went against the Democrats 6 times, or roughly 6%. 2) According to the readings, pg 184, Aldrich makes the point that certain policies within a party can be appealing to some, but less to others within the mainframe of the party scheme. Aldrich brings up the case of the "McGovern Democrats", who were less liberal towards the civil rights movement then their activist counterparts. Lieberman could be fashioning his own brand of this type of attitude, considering he is not as liberal toward foregin policy, ie the direction and purpose of the Iraq war. I think the correct moniker would be "Lieberman Democrats".

I believe the Senate democrats have done enough. Why make an example out of a man who may prove to be vital in a few years, especially when the Democrats have a realistic shot at 60% control? They stripped him of one subcommittee and left him on as the head of the more important Homeland Security Committee. The democrats know that they have more pressing issues at hand, and one slap on the wrist will send both a message and keep the party moving towards their goals. As one Senator put it: But senators pointed to statements by the Obama campaign in support of Mr. Lieberman as justification for their decision. “The Senate Democratic Caucus has decided that if President-elect Barack Obama can forgive, so can we,” said Senator Thomas R. Carper, Democrat of Delaware.

Libertarians...now ours chance..

The Republican party is down, but not out; Cycles seem inevitable in a 2 party system. Whats the next course of action? Hide under the blankets and hope that everything is going to be all right? One possibility, but I doubt it. I think how, or more importantly, when the party bounces back depends greatly on how the new administration is perceived on the job they are doing. Obama and friends really need to mess up bad, like the Beatles did by saying they were bigger than Jesus. Obama's approval rating has to be in the tank, right around Bush's current level( 27%http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Presidential_approval_rating ), for the Republicans to even consider sending a viable candidate to the White House in 2012. The govenors are meeting to discuss a possible candidate for 2012, but why waste a budding politician on an election that looks cloudy at best? If Michael Dukakis can be sacrificed, the Republicans can surely withstand losing another Bob Dole.

Im sure the Republicans will lose some members as penalty for the Bush mishaps and its now time for the damage control team to earn their keep. I offer this: spend the next 4-8 years reinventing the party. Better mobilization efforts, rediscovering conservative fiscal policy, refocusing on states that got the party to this level, candidates that arent on death's door step. Maybe it is also time to start getting away from religon and politics. All this talk about Evangilists and the Christian Right...blah, blah, blah....Religion and politics do not work together. As a moral code, yes, but as a government, it becomes contridictary of what the state needs to achieve. Next, when asked, just say Bush who? Act dumb, it never happened. The era of spend , spend, spend is done; no more from a right winger. Republicans need to go back and try to take back roughly 1-2 % from every eligible voting group. They need to redefine what their platform is and stop with the BS. Be a pioneer in the political world and shoot from the hip. Explain to the American public how these issues will affect them, clearly define where they stand, and for the love of God, stop going back to predetermined talking points in a debate.

Finally, I propose 2 interesting candidates ( NY Times mention one): Colin Powell and Paul Ryan, even though I think Mr. Ryan is more of a 2020 reality. When Powell was Sec. of State, he was one of the most conservative Republicans in the chain of command. And sources say, http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0EPF/is_n5_v95/ai_17459252 he would have had a viable chance in 1996. He may a bit old , but it would be interesting to see Obama v Powell in 2012. Dont burn me at the stake here, but wouldnt Powell v Obama really boil down to the issues?

Reflection on the national popularity contest

- Well, I wasnt suprised that Obama would end up prevailing. The combination of the unapproval of Bush and the economy taking a crapper at the right time for Obama proved too much for McCain to overcome. I'm still unclear to this way over hyped word called "change". When, Where, and more importantly, How still has not fully been established in my view. I really think we have the 2nd coming of Jimmy Carter on our hands here; situations and campaign slogans are irrely similar. I was actually suprised how close McCain was in the popular vote at the beginning of the evening, but towards the end, California voted and it was good night nurse. Speaking of California, I was suprised to see that 3 pieces of conservative proposals on the ballot passed (or didnt, to get technical), with ease as well. #'s 7,8,10 http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_10906329?source=rss .

Our group had Obama winning, but we expected a closer race in the electoral sense. We had 5 states going to McCain that went to Obama: FL,GA, ME, NV, and OH. Our popular vote predictions were off as well: 66 mil for Obama and 63 mil for McCain, while the real results were 63 mil for Obama and 56 mil for McCain. These vote totals may not be final, but for an election that was tabbed as the coming out party for the younger demographic and new voters, the numbers dont reflect this at all: in 04, bush had 62 mil compared to Kerry's 59 mil, which, when added up, suggest less participation for this years election.

These numbers also say that Obama does indeed have an electoral mandate to the presidency. His electoral number exceeds the required 270 to claim victory for t he oval office.

P.S. Is anyone else troubled by the fact that Milwaukee passed legislation requiring companies to give 5 paid sick days? Thats essentially 2 weeks of paid vacation for everyone. What happened to proposals that stimulate job and company growth, not the opposite where government is forcing policy on business? Benefits and jobs will be cut to make up for the cost of this absurd government intervention.

42 Belly Option on 2 (Play called by Tommy Boy before he goes cow-tipping)

Alright Mr. McCain, its time to play hardball; its fourth and inches and your lookin at a full court press. What, Where, Who and How do we effectively do we climb the mountain before you? How bout you relax a little bit from your store bought talking points and take these on for size.

1) Keep discussing health care. I understand the shortcomings of a Federal Health Care reform, ie inflated spending, possiblity of cutting care to save costs, long waits to "non life threating treatment", no incentive for doctors to practice in America ( salary demand will be fixed), but really break it down in the simplest of terms for everyone. Heres a starting point: http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=806950 . Fire back that your plan will not tax health benefits. "McCain does say the sum your employer pays toward your health insurance would start counting as taxable income, but in exchange, every household gets $5,000 knocked off its taxes (even if that takes you below zero). "

2) Corporate Taxes. I know its not a popular stance to stand next to Corporate America, but show how taxing the people who make most of the countries investments and are the pipeline for new innovation and jobs will be forced to cut back on all of these, if the tax rate keeps going up. Especially in a weaker economy, express how alienating companies will eventually send jobs overseas and R and D will be stagnant.

3) Ayres/ Wright/Rezko......whats the deal w/ these 3? Go on the offensive with Obama's association with these 3 clowns. Both come off as radical extremists who, whether he wants to admit or not, has had some influence over Obama's politcal stances, one way or another. He considered Wright a close, personal friend who married him to Michelle; how could these two not talk politics and share some thoughts? As for Ayres, he was the leader of the radical Weather Underground. Point out the possibility of a suppossed ex-terriorist influencing Obama. And bring up the housing scandal with Tony Rezko . http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/16/AR2006121600729_pf.html You may not remember how many houses you have, but at least you have the right paper work that Uncle Sam checks for.http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/us/politics/02rezko.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

4) play to the rural community of the swing states. States like WI, PA, for example, have a large rural population. Dont forget that rural communities tend to vote Republican. Explain what their new incurred costs will likely be, how their community will be adversely affected.

5) ACORN. Attack the intentions of this "non profit" organization and what their possible motives are. Find the smoking gun that links Obama to an organization filled w/ corruption and and a one sided agenda. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122394051071230749.html