Jon M. Hunstman Jr., who?

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/12/03/us/politics/100000001205505/on-the-trail-with-jon-huntsman.html

(WATCH THE VIDEO)

When I say huntsman, you say … cricket… We have heard a great deal about the leading Republican candidates like Perry, Romney, Bachmann, Gingrich, Cain, etc. (in no particular order) but we have not heard much about former Governor of Utah, Jon M. Huntsman Jr. Why exactly haven’t we heard of him? Jim Rutenberg of the New York Times gives us a simple answer: Money. Unfortunately for Mr. Huntsman, it takes a lot of money to keep up with this political process, all of which he doesn’t have. What he does have though is the drive to go door to door in seek of votes and this just in… some help from his billionaire industrialist father.

Rutenberg writes that we are beginning to see Huntsman in a newly released commercial which states “no one has shown up we can trust as conservative.” And then proceeds to answer with, “the presidential candidate they are searching for, is Jon M. Huntsman Jr. The commercial apparently isn’t being financed by Huntsman’s campaign but rather a group called Our Destiny PAC. Remember I discussed PAC’s in earlier posts? Well, if not, it’s still there so feel free to take a look!

Our Destiny PAC is a group that (financed by none other than his billionaire father) has most definitely given Huntsman a good pull up because he was beginning to flunk. This must be really hard for a man who had previously said that any credible campaign has to be able to raise its own money. Well Mr. Huntsman, what do you have to say about that now? I guess it is important that our candidates take a step back and refrain from some of the things they say. It is possible to speak TOO soon.

Rutenberg writes “Since the Our Destiny advertisements began running two weeks ago, officials at the PAC noted that the candidate’s poll numbers had crept up into the double digits. He remains far behind Mitt Romney, and now Newt Gingrich. But he seems to be picking up some support from voters abandoning Gov. Rick Perry and Herman Cain after their recent stumbles, and those who are now presumably seeking a new candidate given Mr. Cain’s campaign suspension.” Although this may be true, it is said that those close to Huntsman have said that he doesn’t want things to be handed to him as a result of his father’s wealth. That is most definitely respectable because ”when asked during an interview on Thursday night if he would call for more help from his father, Mr. Huntsman said: “We don’t operate that way. We’re all pretty pragmatic in my family. We might help a little, but the marketplace ultimately is the greatest judge of whether or not you’ve got the winning formula.”

It’s clear that Huntsman wants to take the election head on strictly based on his credentials, rather than money. “Mr. Huntsman said that for now he intended to continue with his almost exclusively face-to-face campaign here. His campaign reports that he has made 114 visits to town-hall-style meetings and house parties, where groups of two dozen or so Republicans, independents and sometimes even Democrats come to hear him speak. While others have been able to gain free publicity on cable news, Mr. Huntsman does not have the bombast or the poll numbers to draw the sort of media attention that others like Mr. Cain and Mr. Gingrich have received.” (Rutenberg).  

Mr. Huntsman specifically said, “While it may not manifest itself immediately in polls today, I think come Jan. 10, the work on the ground — and at least being recognized as the candidate willing to put in some sweat equity — will pay off,” Mr. Huntsman said. Although this could all be just a political show he’s putting on for us, I think there’s a great amount of integrity and willingness coming from this man. He’s not the ordinary candidate that’s strung up on money because he’s more interested in what’s important; the people.

“What his team did not expect was that they would be so cash-poor at this stage of the race. Part of the problem, people close to Mr. Huntsman said, is that as someone born to a rich father who raised him with a strict work ethic, putting his hand out for money from strangers — or even friends and friends of friends — has not come easily” (Rutenberg).

Although I don’t necessarily know too much about his stance on politics, what I DO know is that this man is doing what he can the best way he knows how. He is in a position that none of the other candidates are in and he seems to be doing well for himself. It says a lot about his character and commitment to his work. I’m really interested in seeing what’s to come out of this man, because something tells me he’s worth a shot (at least more than most of the other candidates). 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/us/politics/jon-huntsmans-cash-poor-campaign-gets-help-from-father.html?pagewanted=2&ref=politics

Kajillion, WHAT?

So for some funny news, Cain appeared on national television giving a speech about his resignation… sorry, what I meant was suspension * (aka, it’s over) as a Republican presidential candidate and used the word “KAJILLION”. What he said was, “I didn’t fit the usual description of somebody that ought to be running for president. I had never held public office before. I didn’t have high name I.D., and I didn’t have a KAJILLION dollars.” Right, and he also doesn’t have what it takes to give a formal speech where the non-existent word “kajillion” is used. I just thought that was completely ridiculous and a bit disturbing because it’s national television.

I can imagine how the outside world perceives America after watching this man that was once a respected presidential candidate (for some). This “kajillion” ordeal was trending so much on my twitter newsfeed that I don’t think he’ll hear the end of it for a while. It’s about time that he back off because I’m also getting tired of talking about him and hearing other people or (myself) mistakenly refer to him as “McCain” instead of “Cain”… and then getting confused.

So let’s talk a little bit about Cain’s suspension of his campaign. It’s been quite obvious that his numbers in the polls have fallen drastically over the course of the last few months and Cain is no stranger to that. In fact, David Goldstein of The Nation of Change writes, “a new De Moines Register poll showed that Cain’s support in Iowa, where the first voting of the election season will take place Jan. 3, had dwindled to just 8 percent down from 23 percent a month ago, when he briefly led the pack.” On Saturday he stated,"I am suspending my presidential campaign because of the continued distraction, the continued hurt caused on me and my family not because we are not fighters, not because I'm not a fighter.”

Goldstein writes, “His decision likely caused the party hierarchy to relax a little as well. Cain’s personal drama had become a distraction, drawing attention away from the rest of the GOP field. Many in the Republican establishment also never thought Cain was a serious candidate to begin with, despite his ability to draw up support. He had little in the way of ground organization in key early states, and his travel scheduled sometimes seemed to indicate more of an interest in selling his book than his candidacy.”

Although I do have to agree that yes, Cain’s allegations were a major distraction, I think that it was a positive thing for the other candidates. His allegations resulted in more positive perceptions of the rest of the candidates. At this point it had become, “anyone but Cain”. He’s pretty much gone now, so I guess we can get back to some REAL politics.

Cain’s last straw was the allegations made by Ginger White, about their alleged 13-year affair, in which she stated he even gave her money. Situations like this make me really question America’s politics. We take “political correctness” to the next level. IF (not saying he is) Cain were a serious politician with real potential to be our next leader, why should this frenzy on the media create such a huge wedge between the people and him? Those are very personal things that should be taken care of on a personal level between him and his family.

http://www.nationofchange.org/cain-ends-embattled-campaign-saying-he-s-peace-1323011546

Campaign Ad Tactics

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/Advertisements
(sorry couldn't imbed. Fast link to the video)

We see 2 campaign ads here from back in 2008. John McCain and Barack Obama.

McCain makes you feel like it’s the end of the world and he’s ready to change everything around for us . His tone is very serene and calm in convincing way. “lets fight for America.” It’s almost a bit scary how much acting is taking place in this small clip as he tries to convince people that he’s the one that should be elected. It’s far too outdone.

On the other hand, Obama’s Campaign Ad shows McCains flaws and how he is “the same as Bush” with a voiceover going through minor facts that prove that point. Interesting, to say the least.

Campaign ads: Change

According to Julian Kanter the basic subject material of ads have changed. Beforehand when we first had television advertising, like during the Lyndon Johnson campaigns, they focused specifically on issues and candidates addressed issue positions but in 1964, all of that changed. They show clips from campaign ads dating back from 1950.

Campaign advertising: Ron Paul

Jonathan Martin from Politico, says that Ron paul has been, undoubtedly, one of the most consistent candidates,over all but he has also been trying to become more mainstream like the other candidates. Martin has many problems within his campaign and one of them is that unfortunately he has a ceiling an isn’t part of the parties main stream. Martin brings up the question of if this campaign had included Ran Paul (Ron Pauls son), instead of Ron Paul who is considerably older. Other things that make a huge difference in a candidates campaign is airtime and presence. Other candidates he states get move airtime on television because of the money behind them. During debates, we see that Ron Paul looks more tired than other candidates and that plays a big role as well.

Oh no, Mitt Romney

Apparently Mitt Romney is not as big of a hit as the polls show. On a news analysis written by Jeremy W. Peters of the New York Times, he writes, " THE WALL STREET JOURNAL editorial page, that irascible voice of high-minded conservatism, has taken a rather dim view of Mitt Romney. “It’s hard to discern any core beliefs beyond faith in his own managerial expertise,” it wrote in September.

The columnist George F. Will has disparaged Mr. Romney, the former Massachusetts governor, as a “recidivist reviser of his principles,” so uninspiring to his party that he might become the Republican version of Michael S. Dukakis. Erick Erickson, who writes for Red State, a blog closely followed in conservative circles, has said that choosing Mr. Romney as the Republican presidential nominee would spell disaster: “Conservatism dies and Barack Obama wins.”

Here's some background info on Michael S. Dukakis, just in case you are not familiar. Dukakis served as the 65th and 67th Governor of Massachusetts from 1975–1979 and from 1983–199. He was also a democratic presidential candidate in 1988. Now that we got that covered, it's important to know that he was refused renomination by his own party! He won his election by promising reform but took that back once he was put into office. This is where columnist George F. Will draw ties to Dukakis and Romney. Romney is seen as just that. An unpromising candidate that in no way shape or form deserves to be elected. 

Peters writes, More recently, conservative news media have provided ample, initially positive, coverage to a succession of candidates with a shot at upsetting the Romney bandwagon, however short-lived those chances proved to be. There was Representative Michele Bachmann of Minnesota, then Gov. Rick Perry of Texas, then the businessman Herman Cain.

So what exactly is helping Romney get such high ranks in the polls? WEll for one, i think it has a lot to do with the fact that he's been laying pretty low and the media has been focusing on all the ridiculousness of the other candidates. For example, Cain's sex accusations, Perry's "memory loss" AKA his numerous excuses that he makes, Bachmann- well, yeah enough said there.etc… The bad publicity that is derived from these candidates is making a guy like Romney look good. Lucky guy, eh? Fortunately though, there are those out there that are able to see how Romney is making his way to the top, and really it has nothing to do with his credentials. It's more about the right timing and how he portrays himself. 

We see that the conservative media isn't really on Romney's side, although he has tried very hard to win them over. Usually the media has a great impact on the how America votes but it doesn't seem to be making a dent. Peters writes, "And if you read, watch or listen to news media that draw large conservative audiences, it is not hard to discern a reason: a recurrent “anybody but Mitt” drumbeat from right-leaning pundits and media outlets that are responding to and feeding a conservative disaffection with him."

Peters gives us great details and facts about conservative radio and according to him, Conservative radio is home to some of the most wary Romney skeptics like Mr. Limbaugh and Mark Levin, taps a particularly large pool of potential Republican voters. An average of 15 million people hear Mr. Limbaugh’s program each week; about 14 million tune into Mr. Hannity’s radio program. Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and Mr. Levin draw around nine million each.

Romney has had plenty of interviews with conservative radio hosts like Laura Ingraham, Bill Bennett, Greta Van Susteren, Mr. O'Reilly, just to name a few. Somehow he's making it out alive, regardless of their discerning opinions about him. What does that mean for the Republican party? Well, they may have to give the republican vote to him. Let's see what happens. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/sunday-review/can-conservative-media-stop-mitt-romney.html?pagewanted=1&hp

Healthcare issues

Most New Yorkers, i would assume, would agree with Obama's plans to have health insurance plans cover contraceptives and sterilization, but religious officials don't seem to be on the same page. This mandate was recommended by The National Acadamy of Sciences and Obama decided to put it into place. I say, good thinking, Obama ! what exactly does this law entail? Well, The 2010 health care law says insurers must cover “preventive health services” and cannot charge for them. On Aug. 1, Kathleen Sebelius, the secretary of health and human services issued rules that require health plans to cover contraceptive drugs and devices and sterilization procedures, among other services.

In order to prevent unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted diseases amongst other things, I think it's important that the people have access to it in an unlimited quantity so that way there is less room for excuses. There are other arguments to this though, and they come in the form of religious matters. There have been a great amount of protest by religious- affiliated groups such as Churches, charities, school, universities, etc concerning the exemption to the plans. this is infuriating democrats in congress for the main reason that they came such a long way in trying to do what they see as something "positive" for the people, only to get shut down.

Apparently there have been exemptions that have been put into place because of the concerns brought to the attention of Congress, but it doesn't seem to be substantial enough to make a difference. Robert Pear of the New York Times writes Churches may already qualify for an exemption. The proposal being weighed by the White House would expand the exemption to many universities, hospitals, clinics and other entities associated with religious organizations. The rules already include an exemption for certain “religious employers,” but the exemption is so narrow that some church groups say it is almost meaningless. A religious employer cannot qualify for the exemption if it employs or serves large numbers of people of a different faith, as many Catholic hospitals, universities and social service agencies do.

House members wrote to Obama urgingg him to keep the exemptions as is because of the risks he would be taking in preventing millions of women in need from contraceptives. Pear writes that Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, said the broad exemption was “an outrageous idea.” And Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, said: “There is not a scintilla of legislative direction in the statute that requires the broadened exemption the administration is contemplating. This change would be a reversal of the progress made in favor of reproductive rights when President Obama took office.”

It's apparent that many want to keep the law as is, but in Meeting with Obama and the Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, it was evident that he wasn't very enthusiastic about this law and expressed his concerns towards it. Pears writes that, in a letter to the administration, the bishops’ conference said the requirement for coverage of contraceptives and sterilization was “an unprecedented attack on religious liberty.” Moreover, the bishops said, “the exemption is directly at odds with the parable of the Good Samaritan, in which Jesus teaches concern and assistance for those in need, regardless of faith differences.”Obama is being very cooperative with religious leaders and trying to understands their views and do the best he can to accommodate their needs. well, it might just play a role in his reelection, smart guy. 

The points made by religious groups are valid based on religious beliefs and deserve to be credited as so, but it's important to realize that in this day and age people use contraceptives and are in great need of them. The world is evolving and I personally think it's important to put aside some of the religious factors that play into such laws. The bible was written long ago and a world like ours wasn't foreseen. Hmmm, does anyone else see a connection to constitution and the fact that our founding fathers weren't able to foresee the advancement of our people today, which means that for our sake we can't take into account every single word written and a few changes need to be made. Just some food for thought. We can agree to disagree or just agree.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/us/politics/democrats-urge-obama-to-defend-birth-control-rules.html?ref=politics

Citizens' Debate Commission

Mr. Farah is the author of No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. He states that the Commission on Presidential debates is created by democratic parties for the republican democratic parties. It is co chaired by a democrat and Republican. Contributions made are considered bi-partisan contributions and it is not fair to third party members. He states that the CPD exists exclusively to award control of the presidential debates to the nominees of the republican and democratic parties at the expense of voter education. Rather than being able to watch actual debates, voters are subject to a series of glorified bi-partisan press conferences. His solution ? - Th Citizens' Debate Commission

Spin room action

This is coverage from the "spin-room" after the 5th republican presidential debate in Tampa,Florida. Charles, a reporter from Politico talks a little bit about Backmann, Perry and Cain. He states Backmann didn't win the crowd over like people expected her. He states that there was a bar in which was already set and it didn't seem as though she had actually met that bar. Although this is true, he states that her presence was great. He discusses the jobs program amongst the candidates. He goes into Romney and Perry's debate over job creation, and their back and forth shenanigans about which has had better success in their states.

medicare/medicaid

medi

Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich debate over the topic of the growth of medicaid. Both candidates seem to agree that the federal government is a bad administrator for the medicare, medicaid, and social security system. Both also seem to agree that the medicaid and medicare system can't be reshuffles but need to be restructured. Cain gives some interesting facts about long term projections and firmly states that long term projection costs are never correct.

Cain = humorous

Want to hear something hilarious? Philip Rucker of the Washington post reported a few words that came from Herman Cain, early thursday morning in good ol' Michigan. 

“How do you beat Obama? Beat him with a Cain!” Cain quipped to a table of supporters at the Big Sky Diner here. When reporters pressed him on what exactly he was suggesting with his remark, Cain said: “Cain. Herman Cain. C-A-I-N. Do I have to connect all the dots for you?”

Thank you for another one of your quirky remarks Herman. As if all your other remarks weren't enough, you come along with these cheesy pick up line. I have to admit though, it is funny. Getting back to some serious stuff, can you believe he's still running after all of what he's said? Every time he says something some of us think ok this is it for Cain, but nope, he keeps on coming back. 

Although Cain tried to sway away his assault allegations, he stood in front of what we call a "tea party" crowd in Michigan and tried to make himself the victim. “I’m gonna be the president of the people and not of the politicians because, as you can tell, they’re starting to come after me,” Cain said. “They’re starting to attack me any and every way they can. Since they can’t kill the ideas, they’re trying to attack my integrity and my character. But the American people are not buying that. They are sick of gutter politics.”What is he expecting though? a sunny stroll down central park? Things like this are expected because every candidate is in it to win it. 

The crowed cheered him on as he arrived on his campaign bus… and wait… guess what they were chanting? His "I am America" theme song from his campaign video. I'm not sure if everyone has seen that yet, but it's a must watch. His chief of staff is featured smoking a cigarette as if it's the "cool" thing to do here in America, and Cain, well, he's just a whole other story. It's almost one of those videos that you can't explain and you have to see on your own and if you don't, well you're missing out, that's for sure. 

Anyway, back to Michigan, comment's like "a REAL black man" were made and it made me furious because what is that supposed to mean? Obama wasn't black enough? What does that even mean? It's upsetting to read this ridiculousness because it shouldn't be the color of a candidates skin that we look at, but more of what they can bring to the table as president. After all, does skin color have an effect on a presidents duties? This is none-sense and shouldn't be tolerated. It shouldn't have to be a black or white thing. 

It's interesting to find that people aren't worried about the assault allegations that have been brought against him. One man said, “It could be true, but people are trying to regulate human nature,” said Steve Lambert, 61, a scrap metal worker from Ypsilanti. “The woman said he made a move on him, she told him to stop and he did. What’s the problem?”

Another woman commented and stated her opinion as well: Cathy Upton, a 60-year-old physician from nearby Ann Arbor, said: “The mainstream media’s trying to distract us. I’d like to believe him. I assume he’s telling the truth.”

In my opinion, Both of these people are right. I have to greatly agree with Cathy because things like this are brought up so that a game of "survival of the fittest" comes into play. Cain isn't willing to crack under pressure and he's doing the best he can. His remarks are always to the point and sharp, humorous as well, if I might add. 

Cain also address his 9-9-9 plan, but as always never giving a direct answer to the questions asked about this plan, because apparently he's not even too sure for himself. “We are the only one that has put a bold solution on the table,” Cain said. “They keep shooting at it, they keep criticizing it and they can’t kill it, and the reason they can’t kill it is because the people own ‘9-9-9’ – and they can’t shoot straight.”

I enjoy watching him and what he has to say because he aways says something that he probably shouldn't have said and he has to apologize for it. It's fun and it makes the debates a lot easier to watch. This ties into my last post about why so many Americans are watching the debates all of a sudden. Well, we have to give a large thanks to candidates like Cain because they always have something wrong to say. But has it become more about the drama within the debates more so than the politics? possibly. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/post/herman-cain-in-michigan-on-obama-beat-him-with-a-cain/2011/11/10/gIQAUsHy8M_blog.html

Watching the debates? why?

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2011/11/10/us/politics/100000001163335/the-caucus--debate-wrap-up.html

What's with the media coverage these days? Everything seems to be like another reality T.V show, whether it's MTV or Rick Perry and Mitt Romney arguing over which one is breaking their own immigration laws. Fortunately, we like what we see and it's keeps us watching. Thank God it's not as dry as some past debates … not calling anyone out (Kerry). How much have these debates helped the candidates on their presidential race? For some it has been a rugged ride that has left Americans turned off by their performance during the debates while for others, these debates have taken them through a more positive route that has America feeling like we're on their side. 

Michael D. Shear of the New York Times writes, "Gov. Rick Perry of Texas will have another chance to either prove he can recover from historic stumbles — including his nearly minute-long spell of forgetfulness on Wednesday — or cement his reputation as one of the worst presidential debaters. Jon M. Huntsman Jr., a former ambassador to China, could shine since the debate is intended to focus on foreign policy. And Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, gets another chance to do something other than criticize the news media for asking terrible questions."

What's important to note is the fact that we are so technologically advanced we can just turn on the t.v or go on the internet and watch debates being streamed live, in which we are capable of coming up with our own conclusions and judgement. Steve Schmidt (helped run Senator John McCain’s presidential campaign in 2008) is right when he draws a reference to American idol and how it has become almost like second nature and ingrained to our culture as Americans. Like in American idol we watch something and automatically have construct some sort of feedback or judgement on the basis of what was just watched. Schmidt says, "debates have grown in importance as Americans have become attached to reality television shows," and he's absolutely right. 

Luckily (or unluckily) for these presidential candidates, we are addicted to the media and anything that has to do with "reality t.v show". We enjoy the drama and expense that comes with the debates. Some of these candidates aren't the regular boring republicans we may be used to; they're all a bit spicy in their own way. Shear writes, It is also the case that the current crop of Republican candidates are not the typical collection of middle-age, somewhat boring governors or senators, said Ronald A. Klain, former chief of staff to Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., and who has served as a debate coach to numerous presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Many are genuine media personalities who know how to use the television camera to their advantage.

Representative Michele Bachmann gained national attention before her presidential bid from her television appearances. Herman Cain spent years as a radio talk show host and giving speeches — good preparation for the debate spotlight. Newt Gingrich made a post-Congressional career out of opining on television programs.

These candidates know what they're doing and it's no surprise nor mystery.  The candidates have also made a point to make each debate like a soap opera that you can't wait to tune into next week. There's always something to look forward to; “The up and down of all the non-Romney candidates have given people a reason to tune in to see who’s up and who’s down. Will Michele Bachmann do better? Will Mitt Romney and Rick Perry fight? Can Mr. Perry bounce back? Will Mr. Cain get “The Question”? Tune in next time!"

Is this the only way to keep America watching like they're doing now? Well, it seems so, and it's not such a bad idea. Apparently there are plenty of democrats who wouldn't have necessarily watched republican debates that have tuned in. Why? Because everyone is talking about them, plus there's nothing better on t.v. We know that these candidates are trying to put on a show to keep our interest but how far do you think they will go to keep our attention … because remember, we have pretty small attention spans. Just kidding … but i'm serious about that when it comes to myself.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/12/us/politics/taste-for-reality-tv-seen-in-popularity-of-debates.html?ref=politics

Network of support

Mitt Romney is seemingly out to charm everyone. Apparently, Romney has been out on the loose, showing up to numerous luncheons, lending his name to plenty of fund-raisers and he’s even been spotted giving money to rank and file candidates around the country.  His game plan is working well because networking is key and he’s definitely on top of his game as far as that goes.

Nicholas Confessore and Ashley Parker of the New York Times write, The New Hampshire Seacoast Republican Women’s Annual Chili Fest? He was there. The Lake County Federation Dinner in Illinois? He delivered the keynote address.  He has slung barbecue at the grand opening of a suburban Las Vegas campaign office and has handed out tens of thousands of dollars to Republicans running for the legislature and other offices. He seems to know what he’s doing as far as getting his name out goes. He wants people to know who he is, and he wants to make a good impression every time. Can you blame the guy?

Tom Schweich, a law professor who jumped into the Missouri Primary last year, still raves about the fact that Mitt Romney agreed/ volunteered to headline his Fund-raiser in St. Louis. Reading this, you would think Romney and Schweich go way back and have been buds for a long time now, but that just isn’t the case. Romeny has never even met this guy, but he made it his business to show his face and get himself out there however he can.

On the other hand, people like Schweich feel more than delighted to have a presidential candidate volunteer to do such a thing. “How more honored could you be that a potential president would come and do an event for a state auditor dinner?” said Mr. Schweich, who raised half a million dollars that day.

Nicholas and Ashley write, Now, as Mr. Romney seeks to solidify the perception that he is the preferred candidate of the Republican establishment, many of his beneficiaries are returning the favor, providing endorsements — more than 1,000 of them, far more than for anyone else — ground troops and other help in the states like Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina that will make or break his campaign.

Curtis M. Loftis Jr., a first-term South Carolina state treasurer and a Tea Party favorite, has campaigned with Mr. Romney, and Mr. Romney showed up for his big fund-raiser last month.

“He was supposed to come for an hour, but he showed up early and stayed late, and I dragged him to meet everyone who was there,” Mr. Loftis said. “We had pictures, we had hugs, we had conversations.”

It’s evident That Romney is trying hard to win over America little by little and he’s apparently got the money to prove it because he’s been raising quite a good amount; but also giving out money as well. In July 2010, a Romney PAC sent a $1,000 check to Georgia’s secretary of state, Karen Handel, the day after she came in first in the Republican primary for governor. That September, a few weeks after Ms. Handel lost a runoff to Nathan Deal, Mr. Romney sent another $1,000 — this time to Mr. Deal. That’s just too bad I guess. If he has waited a while, he would’ve saved $1,000 but I guess Romney isn’t willing to take that chance

I like what he’s doing and support his game plan because that’s what it’s about, getting out there with the people and making yourself available for others. In my opinion, he’s doing just that.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/06/us/politics/mitt-romney-campaigns-tirelessly-and-not-just-for-himself.html?ref=politics

Will Obama get a next term ?

Fact: When looking at the last eight elected presidents, all but two (George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter) got a second term. When considering this, we can conclude that Obama’s chances of getting reelected are higher than his chances of not getting reelected. His approval rating are in the 40’s so it’s hard to say. Nate Silverman of the New York Times analyzes previous presidents and what America thought about them right before reelection. It becomes clear that, it’s not always black and white. Who we might think will win, won’t necessarily do even close to as well as expected.

Obama has had some criticism over the debt ceiling debates, which were said to have “crystalize his vulnerabilities”, which in turn frustrated swing voters as well as annoyed his base, but most importantly, mark the major policy victory for the republicans. Shortly after the debate, Obama’s stock on Intrade, a popular betting market fell below 50% and has remained in the high 40% range ever since. This has undoubtedly made Obama a bit of the underdog.

He also has a jewish, Hispanic, working class white- problem, and somewhat an African- American problem. His standing amongst Jews has declined, with a 54% approval rating amongst them. His African American approval rate declined from 90% to 80%. His problems don’t end with races, but extend to his problem in Ohio, Florida, and New Hampshire.

Nate Silver of the New York times writes, Nevertheless, this is an unusual circumstance. Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Nixon, Reagan, Clinton and both Bushes all looked like the favorite to win a year in advance of their re-election battles, either having strong approval ratings or good-enough ones accompanied by robust economic numbers. When we look at the last eight elected presidents, only Carter faced a situation worse than Obama’s: approval ratings in the low 30s rather than low 40s, the likelihood rather than the mere possibility of a recession, a primary challenge rather than a clear path to renomination and a crisis in Iran rather than a string of foreign-policy victories.

The other seven had stronger fundamentals heading into the election year. This includes the elder Bush, who lost despite an extremely high approval rating and a disarrayed Democratic field (Mario Cuomo and others skipped the race at a time when Bush appeared unbeatable). It also includes Reagan and Clinton, who had grave problems early in their terms but who saw their numbers tick upward at the very moment in their presidencies that Obama’s have continued to slide. None of this is news to the White House. Following the debt-ceiling debate, Obama’s strategists started comparing their boss with the original comeback kid, Harry Truman — an implicit concession that the president will most likely fight 2012 from behind.

Obama is undoubtedly having a few “problems” and Nate states that all of these, however, are symptoms of Obama’s larger problems, a set of three fundamental misgivings shared by much of the American electorate.

• First, many of us understand that Barack Obama inherited a terrible predicament. We have a degree of sympathy for the man. But we have concerns, which have been growing over time, about whether he’s up to the job.

• Second, most of us are gravely concerned about the economy. We’re not certain what should be done about it, but we’re frustrated.

• Third, enough of us are prepared to vote against Obama that he could easily lose. It doesn’t mean we will, but we might if the Republican represents a credible alternative and fits within the broad political mainstream.

Each of these factors, in turn, can be quantified.

• The first factor, Americans’ performance reviews of Obama, can be measured through his approval ratings.

• The second factor, economic performance, can be measured through statistics like G.D.P.

• The third factor — essentially, the ideological positioning of the Republican candidate — is sometimes thought of as an “intangible.” But it can be measured too, and it matters a great deal.

Shift in media

Susan Drucker states that the media has changed increasingly and students for instance are looking elsewhere besides the newspaper for news and coverage. She says people go on Youtube to watch debates. Some watch live debates then go back to it when its not live and dissect it, because we demand that kind of interactivity.

C-span's social media sites

Howard Mortman talks about using facebook and twitter to educate the audience about what members of senate and congress are saying. C-span uses these sites to help people go beyond the media filter. He stresses the importance of people commenting and CONTINUING a conversation. Another thing he talks about is watching live media and talking to people directly.

Social media

A 19 year old student, David Burnstein talks about the impact celebrities, television, and especially the internet have on the youth vote. He states that one of the biggest factors in the political process is the internet. It's been very important for fundraising and organizing. Social sites like myspace, youtube, twitter, facebook have made a huge connection point with the political process.

Who's worthy of the media?

Rober woodward talks about the Media’s coverage of the 1988 campaign, and he says that C-span news reporters only covered candidates that they thought would “make it”. A candidates worth had a lot to do with the media coverage they received or if they received any coverage at all. How interesting is that? If the media didn’t see you as viable, then no one really knew much about you?

Biased or not?

Michael Robinson says the press . . . (major media networks), aren't about "issues" per say, they’re more about scandals and credentials. They aren't necessarily biased, they are equally critical of every party and like Robinson says, their goal is to show america the problems and taboo's with either party

How people respond to the media

William Adams talks about how the media treats certain states as far as their importance goes for the election and the legitimacy that it gives certain candidates if they don't take that state seriously.

Battlefield

This map shows the 2010 congressional election results, and as per the results, the balance of power lies with the republicans (193 votes went towards the Democrats and 242 went to the Republicans). http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2010-race-maps/house/ if you go to this website you’ll get customized maps of republican gains, tea party wins, overall poverty rate, votes from the percent 65 and older, non-Hispanic Black, Hispanic, and those uninsured. Quite interesting stuff, so check it out!


So what exactly can impact a party’s votes?


According to an article from The Washington Post, the Occupy Wall Street movement might stir up some negative results for the Democrats. Not the movement itself, but violent clashes that the media that has brought to our attention. The movement has been acknowledged by many Democratic politicians so the Republicans have a great deal to jab at, especially since Democrats ave already tried laying out attacks on the republicans for being extreme tea party activists.






What would make this a great story for the Republicans?


Well, as we all know, the protest has been quite peaceful, but just a few streaks of violence can really give the entire movement a bad stench. Rachel Weiner of the Washington Post writes, “Just as Democrats tried to tie Republicans to the most extreme tea party activists, the Massachusetts Republican Party is already attacking Democratic Senate candidate Elizabeth Warren as the “Matriarch of Mayhem” for saying she helped create an intellectual foundation for the protests”


<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/JWDJA-OSyzg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The video provides the framework for which the Democrats can bash the Democrats and the route they would take in doing so. They take a few quotes from Democrats and fit them into one clip to make them look bad. Essentially saying look at these Democrats and what they stand for, is this the party that you want to run your nation?


The media is so quick to capture the negativity but are reluctant to show the positive proponents. So far, we know that the protests have been rather peaceful, but for someone that doesn’t necessarily look into the movement and doesn’t keep up, this video would provide a complete basis for their outlook.


The violence in Oakland has been the basis for the negative media coverage lately. The city sent police to clear out protesters. This disrupted the peace amongst the protesters and they didn’t seem to like it very much because they weren’t doing anything wrong. Why is it the protesters faults when police fired teargas at them and didn’t them protest like the rest of the country? Isn’t it our right to assemble and isn’t freedom of speech our right as well? What do the Republicans have to say about that?


I personally don’t think the Republicans have a basis for which to attack the Democrats. The Democrats speak of the movement itself, not all the people individually. Pollster Stan Greenberg seems to agree that what’s going on with the Occupy Wall Street movement isn’t going to affect how the nation feels about the Democrats. Weiner writes,


“Pollster Stan Greenberg argues that the violent clash in Oakland won’t much change public opinion, pointing out that there was already a large gap between support for the goals of the movement and support for the movement itself, suggesting there’s already “some ambivalence on methods” — an ambivalence that has always existed about civil disobediance, including during the civil-rights movement.”

Funny guy campaign

Cheers to Steve Berke. Here’s this young 30 something year old that is running for mayor of Miami, but he isn’t just the ordinary candidate, he’s the extraordinary candidate. When I read an article about him in the New York Times (posted below), I thought about a specific conversation I had in my political science class: Road to The White house. We had discussed a president’s personality and what we look for in a man running our country. Some said they would rather have a more stern and serious president, while others disagreed and wanted someone they can relate to and connect with, someone with personality and a certain quirkiness, and of course the ability to be president ( whatever that means).


Although Berke isn’t running for president, he is running for a rather serious role, but his attitude, maybe not so serious. In the video posed up top, we get a certain vibe from this man and without a doubt he’s funny, outgoing, charming, and last but not least, a young bachelor. I watched the video and found it hilarious-he had me, almost. He describes everything anyone my age desires and is accustomed to or at least would want to be accustomed to. He’s got that edge to him that makes it hard to dislike him, and that’s hard to dismiss.

When looking at this guy, I absolutely love him, but I would probably just want to hang out with him not exactly look up to him as the mayor of Miami. I’m not about the whole “political correctness” thing but I feel as though the line has to be drawn somewhere because humor is a wonderful thing, but politics are a serious matter. It is a matter of being able to take someone seriously or not. It is hard to take this guy seriously and after all, he IS a comedian. Oh, and I think I failed to mention that he isn’t part of the Democratic party nor the Republican party, which is fine… but he has developed his own political party called the “After party”. It speaks for itself.

So where exactly can we find this guy? Lisette Alvarez of The New York Times writes:



MIAMI BEACH — wearing a black suit and tie with neon-pink laces on his kicks, the man in the video struggles up Ocean Drive, past the Art Deco hotels and the hangovers they house. He pulls a trolley freighted with two voting machines — the ones that hung those chads long ago and made election infamy. “Easy come, easy go, time for me to say hello,” he sings soulfully into the camera in a parody of Bruno Mars’s video “Grenade.” “My name is Steve Berke, and I am running to be mayor, yo. Is he real? Do you know? Is he one big joke? I can promise you it’s real.”

Fortunately for Steve, his chief opponent is the present mayor Matti Herrera Bower who is 72 years old and has been mayor for 2 terms already. She’s got a lot to bring to the table, like her experience and grandmother credentials … sounds like she might take the votes, OR probably not.

I can sit here and bash them both, but sincerely, they both have great credentials, even Steve. Steve is a Yale graduate, believe it or not and has done a great deal for himself. He won two national tennis championships, was a contestant on the fox reality show “The Rebel Billionaire” and was able to successfully market and sell his own product (travel pillow) that he created on the show. He then became a comedian, and now he’s running for Mayor. YOU DECIDE.

Republican platform

Newt Gingrich, 2012 republican candidate talks about the republican platform vs the democratic platform and how much more it has to offer. He's very to the point with each platform he announces.

Politics

Curtis DuBay talks about the democratic party platform and the capital gains rate that exists which is said to help the middle class, but apparently that isn't so. He talks about tax rate extensions as well as many other proposals Obama has introduced.

Deal or no deal?

Richard Cohen talks about the deficit reductions committee and the partisan views from the two political party platforms. When it comes to the deficit reductions committee there needs to be some sort of compromise and there needs to be a bipartisan result from both parties.

Will the troops return?

On Friday, our president, Barack Obama announced that all troops in Iraq will come home by the end of the year. He stated that this will declare an end to America’s long and costly war. He started off his speech with “as a candidate for president”, making this decision one for the books, as far as being reelected goes. He wants to make sure voters hear him out and side with him on what is the result of his 2008 campaign pledge to end a war that has divided the nation since it began in 2003 and claimed more than 4,400 American lives. He proudly states that ever since his presidency, more than 100,000 troops have been removed from Iraq and brought back home, and more than 30,000 will be back home by the end of the year and reunited with their families for the holidays. “After 9 years, America’s war will be over”

In his speech he pledged to bring the war to an end, for the sake of national security and the strength of American leadership around the world. According to a statement from the Iraqi prime minister's office, al-Maliki and Obama "shared the same point of view on the need to start a new phase of strategic relations.” Obama states that this is a positive thing and that he wants to refocus into a new transition of new ties of trade, commerce, culture, and education with Iraq, to unleash the potential of Iraqi people.

Not only is it time for troops to get back to their families, but it has also been very costly (financially) for America to keep troops in Iraq. Costs have gone above and beyond what they were intended to be, and it’s time to budget differently.

A report from the non-partisan, government-funded Congressional Research Service found that the Defense Department spent nearly $757 billion for military operations in Iraq over the past decade, $50 billion higher than the estimate released by the Pentagon. Another $41 billion for Iraq was spent on State Department and USAID initiatives, plus $6 billion for troops' health expenses, the CRS report stated.

Although we may see this as a positive impact, economically and morally, many like John McCain don’t seem to feel the same. John McCain spoke about Obama’s plans to remove troops from Iran.

"Today marks a harmful and sad setback for the United States in the world," John McCain Said. "This decision will be viewed as a strategic victory for our enemies in the Middle East, especially the Iranian regime, which has worked relentlessly to ensure a full withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq."

Who knows what will happen until December, but Obama did promise to bring troops home. Standing by his word would give him a one up in the election process because his commitment and dedication will become more and more clear for the Democrats as well as those on the fence.

We can't wait

Many have opposed Obamas $447 Jobs bill, especially the republicans sitting in Congress. Some sources have called it Uberous (or Ourborous) which is an ancient symbol of the snake eating its own tail. In ages past it represented a myriad of arcane philosophies, but today it is also known as a symbol for one who is his own most dangerous enemy, while others approve every bit. I found it a bit entertaining that sources have compared Obama’s jobs bill to Uberous.

Obama’s had enough of the negativity he’s facing and he is no longer willing to wait for congress to take action. He’s said to be willing to take matters into his own hands and cut the fat from the process of getting this bill signed. Sources say that he will be using his executive- branch powers to tackle housing, education, health care, and other economic issues within the next coming month so that America knows he’s serious about the success of our nation. As written by Jackie Calms of the New York Times, by resorting to executive actions, using his wide-ranging authority to oversee federal laws and agencies, Mr. Obama seems intent on showing that he is not powerless in the face of Republican opposition but is trying to strengthen the economy and help Americans in trouble.

Aides have said Mr. Obama would announce at least one initiative each week through the rest of the year.

• This month the administration expedited approval of payments to small businesses with government contracts.

• Steps will be taken towards helping returning veterans and small businesses.

• He has announced waivers for states with schools falling short of the proficiency standards of the 2002 No Child Left Behind education law

• On Wednesday in Denver, Mr. Obama will announce policy changes to ease college graduates’ repayment of federal loans, seeking to alleviate the financial concerns of students considering college at a time when states are raising tuition.

• Obama is also going to announce a housing proposal in Las Vegas that is rooted in the independent Federal Housing Finance Agency, which is the office created to oversee the government- sponsored housing finance companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which claimed bankruptcy during the financial crisis of 2008.

• Initiatives are expected to change eligibility standards for the three-year-old Home Affordable Refinance Program to encourage new, lower-cost loans to more homeowners who owe more on their mortgages than their properties are worth.

Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., in a CNN appearance on Sunday, said the administration would continue to work with federal agencies “to loosen restrictions on the ability to refinance” and also press the banks, “so they can get in the business of actually doing what we think they should have been doing much more of, and that is sitting down and renegotiating with people who are about to go under.”
This is all part of Obama’s new “We can’t wait” campaign, which is designed as a new phase in his effort to pass the jobs bill. WE can see that’s he’s very serious about the bill and sees a better America with its advancements. The question is why are republicans so reluctant to pass the bill when polls show overwhelming support for pieces of the bill. Support for the bill is aimed primarily towards tax cuts for workers and employers, spending for infrastructure projects and for state aids to keep teachers and emergency responders at work. All we can do is wait and see. . . Tune in soon and I’ll discuss some more.

Yay or nay? RNC 2008

I found the resolutions interesting and the process in which the resolutions are objected or ordered is even more interesting. yay or nay? I have never really paid attention to the conventions closely, and probably because I was too young but watch how this is done and take notes !

Obama can tell us why America is so great ...

Obama gives a speech in 2004 at the DNC in honor of the democratic presidential candidate at the time, Rick Perry. Being the great speaker that he is, he gives an amazing speech about the equality of America and how far we have come, "a black father and a white mother that came from nothing found one another".

Where will the RNC convention be in 2012?

Lenny Curry talks about the RNC in 2012 and it's significance. What shot out to me was the economic impact the RNC will have. The RNC is said to take place in Florida, and Curry put's all doubts aside with the amount of confience he has that Florida is the place to be. He's goes into why Florida is such a great factor to the nomination of the president. Watch and learn.

where is this election headed?

The news is filled with all these events going on with the campaign and the candidates but who is America’s top choice so far ? We can see that Obama is taking a big negative hit and Herman Cain is taking the lead. Obama is also taking a hit on wallstreet, against Romney. WHAT !? Which would you rather see in the White house next year?

Obama and Romney are head to head with campaign financing. Unfortunately for Obama, Romney is collecting/ raising more from firms on wall street that have given top donations towards campaigns and specifically Obama in 2008; he seems to be out of luck this year. This isn’t looking good for Obama at all. Obama’s getting hit hard because of the government regulation he tried to impose on large corporations., they obviously didn’t take that very well.  There is a great imbalance of money being distributed amongst the candidates.

Nicholas Confessore and Griff Palmer write that The imbalance exists at large investment banks and hedge funds, private equity firms and commercial banks, according to a New York Times analysis of the firms that accounted for the most campaign contributions from the industry to Mr. Romney and Mr. Obama in 2008, based on data from the Federal Election Commission and the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

“Employees of Goldman Sachs, who in the 2008 campaign gave Mr. Obama over $1 million — more than donors from any other private employer in the country — have given him about $45,000 this year. Mr. Romney has raised about $350,000 from the firm’s employees. “

We can see there is a huge decrease in the money Obama is taking in for his campaign from the business/corporation sector.  Other articles have shown him at the top as far as raising money, but where exactly is that money coming from?

Nicholas Confessore of the new york times writes that  President Obama’s filings with the Federal Election Commission on Friday confirmed that he had he raised about $42 million for his campaign during the three-month period, far more than any of the Republican candidates are likely to report. And Mr. Obama reported having $61.4 million in cash on hand out of the roughly $100 million he has raised so far this year, a war chest that is likely to grow as the campaign progresses.

In comparison to the 14.7 million Romney raised and the 15 million Perry raised, Obama isn’t doing too bad. Word on the street is that the candidate with the most money wins the election. I guess we’ll have to wait and see to see how this one plays out.

Another question is which candidate is Obama most likely going to come up against? It seems as though Herman Cain is doing well, to the distress of many. With the comment he made about a fence that will electrocute people at the Mexican border and his phony 9-9-9 plan that he’s not even sure about himself, do we really want him to run America- (Texan accent) ... not to forgot his slurs about how black's and Latino's vote. Oh, Harmen !!

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/15/us/politics/romney-raises-14-million-in-3rd-quarter-just-behind-perry.html?ref=barackobama

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/16/us/romney-perry-and-cain-open-wide-financial-lead-over-field.html?_r=1

Obama, where's your head at?

This time around, Obama isn’t doing as great as he hoped. Mark Lander of the New York Times writes that Obama isn’t getting the same satisfaction that he did in 2008. His voters aren’t responding like they used to. Apparently a lot feel as though he hasn’t done enough, so they’re looking for the next best thing. At a restaurant in Marion, North Carolina, it was seemingly interesting to find that very few diners got up to shake his hand as anyone would  when in the presence of the president.  The other few were there to critique him and provide their complaints. Lander writes “A  lawyer, Dan Kuehnert, urged Mr. Obama to roll back regulations on business, which the president said he was willing to do — up to a point. Bob Ritter, a pastor at a Baptist church, told Mr. Obama he was praying for him. But he later groused about bank bailouts, saying they amounted to “picking winners and losers.”

Obama is working hard to rise above the negativity and continue to promote himself as best he can so that he can get the votes back from North Carolina. He managed a 3-day tour there to promote his jobs bill , but is also seen as a “crucial segment of his electoral map.” The responses he’s getting are a prelude of what’s to come, but he’s taking it one step at a time. “Look, I appreciate the ‘four more years,’ ” Mr. Obama said to a friendly crowd early in the day at Asheville’s regional airport after it burst into a familiar chant about a second term. “But right now, I’m thinking about the next 13 months.”

Obama spoke about the senate’s rule against his $447 billion bill. His speech was well said and well put together. Obama stated, “They said no to putting teachers and construction workers back on the job,” Mr. Obama said to a spirited crowd of several hundred gathered on the tarmac under a giant American flag. “They said no to rebuilding our roads and our bridges and our airports.”
“Essentially,” he declared, “they said no to you.”

 “If they vote against taking steps that we know will put Americans back to work right now,” Mr. Obama said, “then they’re not going to have to answer to me, they’re going to have to answer to you.” 

So where's Obama's head at?  He's worried about our Country. His attitude, in my opinion is pretty on point. Stating that he’s more worried about what’s going on with today’s economy rather than his reelection, is telling of his motives for the nation. With that statement we can conclude that he cares more about the people of the nation and the prosperity of America than his “title”.  Something that we need to all be aware of is the fact that he can’t just write laws and pass them all on his own. American need to understand that Congress has a large role in the law passing process and we can’t just put the blame on Obama, because he can only do so much. Obma became the president after the nation was left in ruins. He was left to remove the excess debris and continue from there. Lets cut him some slack and listen to what he  has proposed and is willing to do for the nation.