GOP to Obama: Show Us a Plan for Releasing Guantanamo Prisoners

So he said on Day 2 he would close Gitmo.....yet still doesn't have a plan 100 some days later

'Joe the Plumber' Won't Let Gay People Near His Kids

Joe's still hanging around....nearly a half year after the election!!

Arlen Specter.....

The stunning change of parties last week by Sen. Arlen Specter was w/o question a surprise, but one that any political observer can understand the reasoning behind.  His constituents are becoming more and more democrat, and he wouldn't have won a bid back to the Senate the next time around, so he figure he'd "switch teams" and join the team that's currently winning in the United States; because everyone always wants to play fora winner right?!  In regards to the state of the party system, I don't really think it shows too much other than the fact that campaigns are becoming more and more candidate centered; something we already knew.

Fiorina would probably suggest this switch wasn't actually necessary, since America isn't actually as polarized as most think when looking at the choices and stances they make.  But when looking at the actual decisions they make, the switch probably was necessary.  The reason something like this is possible is because Sen. Specter made a clear statement that he has little principles and cares more about winning; when the going gets tough, the tough get going, not quit like Sen. Specter.  Whether or not this actually works for him is still up in the air however, as the Dem's are now saying they will most likely put up someone to challenge him in the primaries, as well as Congressional Dem's already saying they arent all too excited about the switch.

Sen. Specter's Party Switch Upends Pennsylvania Politics Heading Into Election

I'm sure someone else will post this story as well, but this is a HUGE news story in terms of Washington politics and the Dem's possibly getting a Super Majority now and even more so the fact he has had an "R" by his name for 30 years and now all of a sudden he's switching.  My question is what happens 7 years from now if he wins this time and decides to run again and at that time the Dem's aren't doing well; will he switch sides again?!  This also takes into account ideas we've touched on in class dealing w/ candidate-centeredness; this move is clearly about him wanting to continue as a career politician because he knew he wouldn't have even made it out of the primary this election season, so by ruthlessly switching he increased his chances of being able to continue on in the Senate, sacrificing his principles I feel all just so he can win, because apparently that's more important to him.

What's The Matter W/ California?!

While Frank’s questioning of how the good people of Kansas vote is legitimate, it is not only in Kansas.  The entire basis of his claim basically is because people in Kansas earn less, they should favor the Democratic Party.  However, the same “backwardness” happens in areas such as California where Hollywood stars are making tens of millions of dollars and the entire industry is virtually liberal.  If I were to stick to Frank’s reasoning, they should be some of the strongest conservatives in the country; whereas they are actually probably the strongest liberal segment.

I feel Bartels is clearly more right on w/ his analysis than Frank; but I still somewhat feel he is missing the point perhaps.  The people of Kansas want to earn their money, and even though they aren’t making a ton of money, they don’t expect government handouts.  They want to work hard for their money and have their success be measured in bushels and the amount of bricks they lay.  They clearly like the idea of a free market capitalist economy, and would rather work hard making an honest living than accept government handouts.

These red staters are humble and just down to earth, good, normal folk.  They believe strongly in their ideas, but wont push them upon you; contrary to the idea of many liberals who feel their ideas are best and that they need to push them on others.  Kansas, and the Midwest in general, hasn’t always been this way however; see our former Mayor Frank Zeidler who served from 1948-60 as a Socialist.

What I feel Frank is implying is that the GOP is pushing this culture war ideas onto their constituents in order to get the votes and make it seem these social issues trump economic issues, because he feels that the GOP doesn’t cater to the lower class (our next book deals w/ this culture war so maybe I’m on to something?!).

Frank also implies that the unfortunate state of Kansas cities is due to its workers being powerful, taxes being high, and labor being expensive; something that sharply resembles powerful unions, a democratic idea supported by blue staters.  Kansas does still support each of the basic elements of the American economic mix though.  While Frank may have studied Kansas, he hasnt studied the rest of America.

People may be poor by Frank's standards, but by most American's standards, they arent poor.  If he were to redefine this, I feel he could make his argument more valid and perhaps convicnce me.  Another grip I have is his only comparissons are between white college educated and white non-college educated; and it seems to me he is somewhat demeaning of those who didnt earn a degree.  I almost take offense to his stance of non-college educated people should be voting democrat because they are the party for the less educated and less wealthy.  A majority of Americans havent gone to college, yet a lot are still very successful.  And the truth is, since 1980 there have been no consistent differences in voting patterns between those w/ or w/o a college degree.

In this past election, as we've discussed before, the economy as it usually does trumped everything.  In 2005 when this debate was going on the economy was good and that helped President Bush win a second term and allowed the light to be shed on the social issues.  And even in this past election cycle, social issues were big until the collapse and it was demonstrated w/ Sen. McCain still leading in the polls all the way up until September/October.  These economic issues outweigh the social issues, as Bartels notes.  Bartels also notes that during the two Bush Administrations there was a notion of "saving" the Democratic party and a mass overreaction to the current times; only a few years later now they are in complete power and the GOP is now in their situation -- these are simply political cycles and I'm sure a few years from now the GOP will be back in power and then we'll do it all over again.

Obama Under Fire for Plan to Close Guantanamo

So these terrorists cant go back home, we dont want them here in America....where does President Obama think he's going to send them?!

My New Party

In America, the main dividing principle between the two parties is the idea of big v. small government. Since right now the big government idea has control, I’m going to assume the small government idea fades out and the GOP dissolves. As our text notes, the two main parties right now are clearly divided on issues, so on most issues my new party will simply just be the opposite stance of the Democrats; they want gun control, I want gun rights, they are pro-choice, my party will be pro-life and so on. These are BIG, black and white, hot button issues that if I took a different stance on them it would simply resemble the Democrats too much, therefore not giving my new party any defining characteristics. It’s the other issues that my party will take a new stance on compared to the GOP such as gay rights, legalization of marijuana, etc. that will set us apart and allow for our rise to power.

Our leaders would be the new young guns of the current (now presumably extinct) GOP, most notably Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal. In addition, Rep. Paul Ryan could play a large role if so chooses. Our platform would have more of a traditional tone than the current GOP. It would promote hard work and good decision making, and reward those who are successful. In addition, we would be all about helping the helpless and those who are making an effort to better their lives, but would not help the clueless like the Democrats do. We would take somewhat libertarian stance for those who deserve it, but still have an extremely strong government. Good, law-abiding Americans should be allowed to do what they want as long as it isn’t a detriment to anyone else, but we would not give those same rights to non-Americans; most notably terrorists of enemy combatants. Some key issues would be the legalization of marijuana w/ restrictions; if you want to smoke it in your basement, that’s fine, all the power to you. But don’t expect the government to help you if you become addicted like our current government does. We would also allow gays to marry, as our government can’t determine who can love who. However, gays wouldn’t be given all the same rights as married couples, in order to protect the sanctity of traditional marriage and prevent marriages strictly for the benefits.

Most of our issues we own would be borrowed for the GOP, but w/ our own twist on them. We would still own the issue of pro-life, however, exceptions would be made in cases where the mother didn’t voluntarily become impregnated; she shouldn’t have to carry a baby for 9 months that she didn’t choose to. However, if the baby was conceived by your own doing or carelessness, abortions wouldn’t be allowed. We’d also own the gun rights issues, but w/ more restrictions, yet still allowing gun ownership. People have a constitutional right to bear arms, however an EXTREMELY limited few have an actual reason to own an assault weapon, so those would basically be banned, and in addition, the registration laws would become much more rigorous in order to make sure those purchasing guns are purchasing them for the right reasons.

While it would most likely take even the best parties a few election cycles to catch on and gain momentum, I feel that by appealing to a traditional America w/ the idea that if they are willing to put in the work, their government will work w/ them and allow them to succeed, I feel we would appeal to a vast majority of Americans; and more specifically, those Americans who are actually voting.