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

The Battle of Independent

Just how critical are independent votes to elections? The key to office lies in their hands. By viewing exit data from the 2008 primaries, the current nominees were able to ride the independent vote towards the novembder election. Exit polls from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21226015/ are able to back up this statement: The one who appeals to the independent can be almost guarentee victory lane. I believe this is true in every election. You will have some people on the fence during the election, but traditionally, when November rolls around, voters on that fence come back to their last party identification. Candidates must appeal and incorporate the independent mind into their campaign and policy strategies to fully guarentee a solid showing. As these exit polls indicate, independent voters always voted with the eventual winner.
These exit polls also reaffirms my expectations for voter behavior. The young vote will always go Democratic, old vote Republican. To me, there arent really any suprises when exit polls come out. Am I really going out on a limb by suggesting that UWM will vote 80% for Obama? Polling is important but the focus is off. Polling should really break down independents; on their behavior, who they are, what issues concern them, how they got to be independent and when.

possible answer to the healthy democracy scenario: low turnout signals that everything is being run smoothly....why go through a revolution when there doesnt need to be one? Just ask the French, circa 1793

Howdy- i'm really not a bad guy

thanks for your comment....reading yours and these responses, heres my thoughts: m bluethman, I gotta agree and disagree with your reasoning why Republicans lost a lot of seats in 06. Did the partisanship of the party have a hand? yes, but your forgetting that fact the that Prez at the time was the lowest approved prez, i believe, ever. Anyone attached to the Republican ticket was in dire straits, mostly to do war sentiments and gas pump prices. (Which by the way, take a macroeconomics course and you'll find the answer why the prices skyrocketed). Anyway, my view on the bailout plan is that there is the remote possiblity that House members did have the taxpayer at the forefront. With the meltdown of Fan and Freddie, where some legislators just ready to dip into our pockets yet again, refinace money market institutions, and hand them over to government control, just like Fan and Freddie? check out this link: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122290574391296381.html
Interesting stuff said by Mr. Greenspan, basically saying that these huge lendors setup by federal government were going to eventually cripple the money markets, which is what exactly happened. Any Tom, Dick, and Sue could get a mortgage, as long as they had a SS # and 3 bucks to their name. People got in the habit of thinking they could afford 300k homes when the reality was just the opposite. Personal responsibilty is a lost art in this country and it frustrates the hell outta me. How many times do the taxpayers need to be called upon to bail the economy, health, workforce out of sticky situations? We are skyrocketing towards a socialist economy and even Rousseau, a socialsit political philosopher, would argue that a socialistic state of this magnitude would fail to exist. So to answer Ms. Pyatt question in her comment, I am scared. You keep adding weight to the yoke of oxen, eventually, the back is going to break.

Minority Party- What about the little guy?

Even the word "minority", when pertaining to government control, brings up feelings of helplessness, domination, and little voice. But if we examine just a little further, we can understand that the minority party in a democracy plays a vital and important political role. The minority party can act as a watchdog for policy and behavior of the majority party. This title can help the minority party in future elections by pointing out the flaws and mistakes from the party in power. This leads to the second point, which is table setting for future majority control. History teaches a valuable lesson; by not repeating the failures of past administrations can further entrench approval among potential voters. The minority party can also survey what areas are weak among the majority party, i.e. issues, potential seats and use to agressively attack these points to help remove the party in power and secure the possession of majority control. My third point of the role of the minority party is the ability to comprimise and negotiate concerning policy creation. This benefits in two ways. 1. Legislators among the majority party who do not stricly vote along party lines can be ignored by the controling party,therefore paving the way for the majority to seek votes from the minority. In order for members of the minority to vote along w/ the majority, the negotiation can be begin. The minority members may not get full policy approval, but for the majority to gain some minority vote, tade offs need to occur and therefore, the minority is able to have some voice in the direction of the policy. 2. Future considerations- Minority members can cut a deal w/ majority members for current policy, but if and only if, the minorty members are able to stay in power. If this event occurs, minority members can "remind" majority legislators of where and how they scratched their backs, and the Potomic Two Step ensues. Lastly, a special benefit that occurs in the Senate, plays a huge role in policy configuration. Minority Senators have the power to filibuster any legislation that comes to the Senate floor, being able to argue whos better Fred Flintstone vs Homer Simpson for days on end. In todays Amercican Senate, the minority just has to threaten to filibuster in order to get some considerations from the new bill. The majority party has the power to block the act of filibusters but needs a rare 60% majority vote to do that.
All these points give some hope to Republicnas after the Nov. election, cause lets face it, McCain is in trouble and the majority will strengthen its numbers in Congress. The question remains, will Obama be able to reach out to minority Republicans to secure broad appeal? Or is "Change We Can Believe In" a topic for Robert Stack's Unsolved Mysteries? Stay tuned..

one note:
reason for no blog last week: Brewer Playoff Baseball...this happens once every 26 years, not every year like some heartless East Coast teams who believe in curses and putting old players heads in ice cubes. will this rant help my grade? j/k

Campaign Reform/ Primaries

Have new rules concerning primaries accidently affected the way people vote and think in America? I believe its a resounding yes. On one hand, primaries exhibit democracy at its fullest: enabling every available voter to sound off on which candidate has the best chance of winning. Also, the simplicity of the system is a definate bonus in determining the right candidate. But, as a lot of things in the political world, what are the unintended consequences of primaries? I believe a major argument against the primary machine is the act of front-loading. Early primaries, such as Iowa, now hold a huge influence on the potential fate of how votes are cast. I think a perfect example of this can be found in 04 campaign for the Democratic ticket. Dick Gephardt was the leading candidate in the polls leading up to the Iowa primary, but John Kerry recognized the influence that Iowa can have by pouring millions of dollars into the state to swing voters to an eventually win. Gephardt's campaign lost a lot of steam, while Kerry went on to the Democratic convention. Iowa set the tone for the race, probably perseuding undecisive voters in other states to vote for the leading vote getter after the first primary. A 2nd point to consider is the affect of campaign finance reform has over the nomination and election of candidates in the primaries. According to OpenSecrets.org, "These groups represent a variety of positions on a variety of issues, but they have one thing in common: they influence how you look at the candidates." Groups, such as 527's, PAC's, and other advocacy groups, wield a powerful influence over voters that may not be the most informed: using this finance sways the independent vote towards the candidate they want in office, influencing perception against reality on the American voter mind, using voter mobilization, and cunning ads.

Can factions be eliminated freom American elections? If Madison got his wish, this would be a reality, but in the grand scheme of a national election, is it even possible? Madison stated that the effect of one faction cannot be overly negative to undermine the political system. Is this possible in todays age for one faction to essentially control both parties in their influence? I believe that to control both wings of the political spectrum is a long shot, but to control one party can be a possibilty. According to OpenSecrets.com, the rebuplican party received 75% of 26 million from Oil and Gas advocacy groups. How will these groups see payback? Legislative sentiment, tax refunds, or deregulation are just some of the ways that Oil and Gas groups can see returns on their investments. American factions are here to stay; as long as the money flows from these groups into campaigning, the comprimising of legislative empathy will live on.

The 2008 Presidental race shows a perfect example of how the electoral process affects the eventual nomination and acceptence of a candidate. On one hand, the democratic party is convinced that it's time for nominating against the normal grain of the standard white male: the party pitted a woman vs. an African-American. Citing party polls and opinions, the democratic brass tried to feel out which candidate has the best chance for office, using Obama's minority status, eloquent cander, stances against the current administration, and position on foregin affairs versus Clinton's women vote, experience with past administrations, and plan for health care reform. The party then polled and polled and polled and even called in the Legion of Super Delagetes to decided who has the best chance to win office, or to put in more specific terms, who has the best chance to sway the votes of the moderates.
In this sample case, was there really another chance for a different voice to be heard on the left side? Clinton and Obama have been setting up their high office run since 2005, when Bush was sworn in for his second term. All the Dems have heard where these 2 main candidates , not much other real possibilities where ever presented ( Kerry, Gore, Edwards, ugh...). Did the 08 dem primaries present any suprises or outside thoughts or other options? In my mind, a party should be open to the possibilities that numerous people could be the right nominee, not just 2 over 3 years. In this sense, the primaries are bad for the voters, having little to chose from in the way of a candidate that suits their views the best, but good for parties, in relaying the best possible winner in the election to the forefront, a best of the best, survial of the fitest competition.
Does Obama provide the W desperately needed for the left wing? That remains to be seen. But for the power of the highest office in the country, you better believe that any political party with beat the electoral institution to death in order to satisfy the party's demand to win electoral office.

What is a political party?

In my view, political parties are organizational machines created to gain control of a democratic government, through financial support, policy amending control, and the selection of viable candidates who support most of these parties views and stances. Washington's farewell address brings up a interesting point of view concerning political parties. According to his speech, Washington was fearful of party organization. But why? Was revolt the reasoniong behind his statements? or revolt against his organiztion, his blood sweat and tears, his friends, his system? Washington had no desire to become the proclaimmed monarch of the new America, but was he worried of a new party forming that was still loyalist to the British crown? I think Washington had the desires and concerns of the people in the forefreont: Washington may have feared political parties will eventually lead to more centralized factions among the people, leading to parties centered around the elite, the populus needs ignored, and, eventually, a North vs South, sacrificing public liberty in the process. On the other hand, DeLay's speech makes him out to be an advocate of the political system. I think congress may have realized in the past 100 years that have centrtalized power definately isnt a bad thing; how can we hold onto these seats and still cover the ears and eyes of the American people? Enter a 2 party system, where congressmen like DeLay have no real threat of outside opinion and opposition. Sure, there are 2 parties, but does the policy making and decisions really change drastically with each new congress? The 2 party system has created a loophole in the process of decision making of the American voters; dont venture too far from the status quo and power will remain in the same hands.

Intro

9/4

- " The government that governs least, governs best." - Thomas Jefferson
I know I'm in the minority, expecially on a college campus, but this single statement may best reflect my hopes of where our political attitudes may evolve towards. I have always been interested in the game of politics; from the tradeoffs to the kickbacks to the glimmer of of actual hope and progress that potentially shines through and what we hope to achieve. I hope to progress my understanding of politics through this online course, which really plays into a busy work and home schedule. My only fear is that the classroom discussion of arguable topics is sacrificed but I'm sure we will be able to find a way. A little about myself: I'm a libertarian, an endangered species, and no, I dont like Nascar, country music, and I did not grow up in the Hamptons.