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.

The GOP Will Come Back Strong as Ever

The presumption that the US Republican Party is falling apart is simply preposterous. The GOP just held the presidency for 8 years, capping off a GOP stronghold that has run for decades. Because they simply lose one election doesnt mean they are going to become a regional player and lose any national interest. As w/ any loss, the organization should be analyzed, recommendations for changes carefully considered, and then changes to move the party forward implemented.

When the GOP formed as a result of opposition to the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the national party system didnt have the power and reach it has today. The GOP started small at the local level and worked it's way up to the national level. Because of the power, reach, and the "show me the money NOW" philosophy, the thought of a new startup party gaining prominence in the US political scene is slim. In addition, during that era elections were being lost 70-30, while today AT MOST an election may be lost 55-45; the GOP still has a firm grasp on the American political scene.

The reason the thought of this regular political cylce perhaps turning into an all out collapse of the GOP also has to do a lot w/ the talking heads of today. Even 10 years ago, the media didnt play nearly the role it does in politics. But today, while the country is basically split pretty evenly, the media clearly leans to the left, therefore giving the left a much louder voice.

Wisconsin Rep. Ryan Seen as Future of GOP

The Heritage Foundation, a prominent conservative think tank in Washington, has anointed Rep. Paul Ryan "the leader of the future of the conservative movement." Pretty cool considering he's from Wisconsin and all...maye we'll see the first ever Wisconsin born President?!?!

Electoral Mandate -- Perhaps?!

To the novice political observer, it would have been clear that President Obama held an electoral mandate when he took office. Not only did he overwhelming win an election that was called as early as could be (10pm CST), but he also held control in both chambers of Congress. Some would say he was almost given free reign to do whatever he pleases because this so called mandate was so dominant. In addition, he didn't win this election on his own; no politician can win an election on his/her own. They owe much of their success to the party, therefore the party will expect results in return and the candidates following through on their mandate. However, if looked at closely, his actual mandate may be in question.

The truth in the matter is that the Democratic Party held the mandate, not President Obama. At the time, the GOP was, and still is, in shambles, therefore the Democrats held a mandate more or less against Republican ideas. As it's been talked about countless times, a vote for Obama was more of a vote against President Bush and Republican ideas than for President Obama's ideas. While partisanship may be growing, according to our book party strength is probably weakening because accounatability is in question and people are clearly expecting too much out of the presidency.

This doesn't mean though that it's a direct endorsement of Democratic ideas, or even President Obama's ideas for that matter. It just so happened that President Obama was the best candidate to portray this idea of "change" and distance himself the most from so called "typical politics" to appeal to the masses.

And while he still holds that mandate today, signs are showing it to be weakening and the chances or him continuing to lead w/ his mandate are slim. He took office w/ such extraordinary expectations (see this YouTube clip) that it would be impossible for anyone, Republican or Democrat, to hold on to the mandate he was given. It is also being demonstrated abroad by British MEP Danielle Hannan and his criticism of the way President Obama is handling the economic recovery.

And is the case w/ either party that holds the presidency, President Obama for this example, the approval numbers will most likely start to slide over time, the anti-Obama sentiment will grow, and that mandate will slowly slip away.

Auto Union Drove GM to Trouble

Can President Obama really fire executives?! While I agree these companies need shakeups, starting w/ the all too powerful unions, the government is crossing the line here by "recommending" personnell moves.

Green Bay tea party rallies against federal programs

If you haven't seen CNBC's Rick Santelli's proposal for a Chicago Tea Party, make sure to check that out first!  Residents of Green Bay who agreed w/ Santelli recently held their own rally in opposition to government bailouts, handouts and in support of working hard, being smart, and being responsible for their own actions.

Santelli said it best and Wall Street doesn't lie -- they don't like President Obama's plan for the economy!

Democratic Party Increases

During the past 2008 US Presidential Election, the Democrats were the recipients of the largest Party Identification advantage over the course of the last 20+ years.  According to PewResearch, the Democrats achieved a 7% identification advantage over the GOP.  In previous election cycles, the Democrats had advantages, but failed to win the general election due to higher Republican turnout – a common identify of the GOP.  However, this time the GOP couldn’t overcome the wide margin, as the Democrats captured the White House.

 

This may signal a new switch in party identification.  Since the 1950’s, the Democrats have lost party identifiers, while the GOP has remained steady and the independents have increased.  With more and more people becoming involved (most notably the grassroots efforts on the Democratic side), I feel it is likely that the Democrats will soon see a notable increase in party identifiers.  And while this party identification doesn’t necessarily reflect voting behavior, the recent increased partisanship may reflect this and help the Democrats.

 

This isn’t good news for the GOP, since party identification is something learned at a young age and usually doesn’t change over time, only strengthens.  This growing Democratic advantage may stay for decades (as the GOP has dominated the last few decades, winning 7/10 I believe).  And since one of the only ways party identification is changed is due to an intense issue interest (currently Iraq, War on Terror, etc.), the Republicans may have already lost some to the left, only hurting their cause for the future even more.

 

In addition, the recent upswing in upswing in political activity and identification over the last 8 years is also helping to mold the next generation the Democratic Party.  Since party identification is the single most stable political attitude and influences opinions and behaviors (rather than vice versa), it is safe to say that in the near future the Democrats may experience the same success of the GOP over the last few decades.

 

Some noteworthy tidbits to take from the exit polls include:

·      The only voting identification that President Obama didn’t gain ground was that among active Democrats; however he didn’t lose any either.  He picked up votes among Republicans, won the independent vote, and increased the Democratic share among virtually all other demographics

·      From the 2004 election to the 2008 election the Democrats switched to their favor the 18-29 white vote, Post-Grad white vote, Eastern region white vote, and the Urban white vote

·      The only region that President Obama won among white voters was in the east

 

In addition, for the first time history (probably?!), the youth vote actually may have made a difference.  Obama drew about 2/3 of the youth vote and won it by a much greater margin than Senator Kerry in 2004.  Had Kerry reached out and appealed to the youth vote the same way President Obama did, he probably would have won the White House.

 

Overall, the Democrats have made strides among basically all demographics over the last couple years.  However, all this success can be wiped out due to the successes/failures of the single most important issue to voters – the economy.

 

Why the GOP Shows Up!

In Congress, I’d have to say the most obvious answer to the role of the minority party is to keep the majority party in check. We have a “miniature” version of checks & balances for Congress in the two chambers. While the majority party still may be able to pass questionable legislation, you can bet that the American people will hear about it (whether it be from the party leaders pointing fingers at the other party or talking heads on the Cable News channels such as Sean Hannity or Keith Olbermann) if one side doesn't like it. And if after hearing about it, the American people don’t like it, that party will face repercussions at the polls next time out. These checks and balances hopefully make politicians think twice about making questionable calls if they know it may hurt them at the polls, because w/ these career politicians, their loyalties often lie w/ thier constituents in order to get reelected, and not the party.

In addition, the biggest, most daunting and of course MOST important objective of the minority party has to be how they are going to switch and become the majority party. To do this they need to retain active leadership, build coalitions, practice bipartisanship, and keep a stable positive image of the party. As our text points out, whether or not the minority party is actually successful depends on both inside and outside Congressional forces. The main external forces are as follows:
o Temper of the times, such as the presence of a domestic or international crisis
o The relative political strength of the minority party in the electorate
o The degree of unity w/in the parties outside Congress
o The power of the president and his willingness to use the advantages inherent to his office
Conditions w/in Congress that are most likely to affect Congress are:
o Legislative procedures
o The majority party’s margin over the minority
o The relative effectiveness of majority and minority party leadership
o The time the party has been in a minority status (mentality)
o Relative strength of the party in the other house

More often than not, the above mentioned external forces will play the largest role in affect behavior and strategy while the internal forces will affect the size of vote margins and the effectiveness of both party leaders.

The question of why even bother to call for bipartisanship is a very good one. If the democrats have a mandate, shouldn’t they just do what they want, because that’s obviously what the voters want…right?! And that is basically what is happening right now w/ their massive spending bills. To their defense however, the same happens when the GOP is in the majority, as the call for bipartisanship I feel is more symbolic and “feel-good” than anything. One side will claim they are trying to be the good guy and offer out their hand, while the other side will argue that they just aren’t being reasonable.

As to why the 214 Republicans even show up, it’s a simple answer; to prevent the Democrats from pushing through too radical of an agenda. They were elected by people who want conservative (most of the time) values on Capitol Hill, so it their duty to the people to represent them. It’s similar to that of our legal system. In the US there is a Judge who acts as a referee, and two sides (Prosecution and Defense) that battle it out to find all the facts, prove/disprove all the theories, and come to the best conclusion possible. This is an adversarial system w/ a goal of obtaining the most information possible to make the best possible decision in the end. The same holds true w/ Congress…the minority will bring ideas, values, etc. that the majority won’t often bring, so in order for the best decision to be made, these must be heard. Because I’m sure both sides can agree that you need to analyze each side’s ideas and consequences first before making a decision…..or maybe they just always think their ideas are best?!?!

How Can the Dead Old Party Become the Grand Old Party Again?

Tammy Bruce's blog outlines a party in disarray and touches on everything from the beloved Reagan years to the current clash between RNC Chair Steele and Rush....and of course everyones favorite conservative, Ann Coulter.

Vote for all your favorite problems, and then vote against the deficit!

In this past election cycle, there was basically just an “Anti-Bush” and “Anyone but the GOP” sentiment coming out of the Democratic camp, while the Republican camp….really didn’t have a camp, because that would involve their organization. The Republicans were faced w/ a daunting challenge of distancing themselves from the unpopular Bush Administration and choosing from a cast of nominees that all had their flaws, while the Democrats had two very feasible presidential candidates.

Both camps were very candidate-orientated, as is becoming the trend nowadays. Sen. McCain was constantly portrayed as a "maverick" who did what was best for the country, even if it meant going against his party. President Obama also tried to distance himself from the culture of Washington politics in general, pledging "change" and his plan to clean up Washington. While the Democrats embraced this idea, the Republicans couldn't and it cost them the election. Most true GOP voters weren't anywhere near 100% happy w/ their candidate, while most Obama voters were overly happy w/ their candidate. This in turn amounted in his camp being better organized, funded, etc.

Probably the biggest turning point in the election was the fallout of the market in October. Up until the market tanked, the McCain-Palin team had a slim lead in most polls and was still riding the Gov. Sarah Palin hype. However, similar to the Iran Hosta crisis in 1979, the market turned the election to the Democrats.

Similar to the ideas of Teachout, the Obama voters were very enthusiastic, confident, and just simply excited for the election, so they organized and made the nomination and election happen. Obama used this to his advantage to form mailing lists, blogs, etc. -- most notably the text messaging system that notified those who signed up of important events such as who the VP would be and when he would name him. This helped him win the election, and he has brought this idea of reaching out via the web to the White House -- revamping the White House website, producing a Recovery site to deal w/ the bailout, etc. In terms of their actual campaign websites; Obama's simply gives thanks and has a T-Shirt sale, McCain's says thanks, & Clinton's is asking for help to pay off her debt (apparently the Clinton Machine is longer so well off financially!).


In terms of Congressional candidates, the web effect hasn't hit them in full force yet. While they can be vulnerable to Youtube "gotcha" moments, because their actual constituencies are much smaller, some of which have large segments that don't even use the internet I'm sure, they are more likely to be going door to door, having town hall meetings, attending local breakfasts, etc. However, just because they havent been hit by the web yet, it doenst mean they are any less vulnerable. In fact, congressional candidates are usually always more vulnerable than presidentail candidages; with Richard Nixon being the outlier here, feeling he was so vulnerable when in actuality he was fine, causing his resignation. The fact that these congressional candidates are always in an election year or pre-election year takes up a lot of their resources. And because they have an unlimited number of terms, the only time they can really "kick back, relax" and not worry about reelection is when they have determined not to run anymore or have extremely thick skin.

Jindal: Obama's Economic Plan Irresponsible

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal gave tonight's Republican response to President Obama's unofficial "State of the Union" and as one of the frontrunners for the 2012 GOP nomination, he sure looked far from it. In text, the speech was at best good, but delivered, the speech was at best average. Of course, can ANYONE really follow up President Obama in terms of giving a speech?!?!

Campaign Finance Reform....Really Necessary?!

In Madison’s Federalist No. 10, he clearly expressed his fear that factions would have a negative impact on American politics. And while the factions he were referring to were parties, factions along the lines of PAC’s, 527’s, and even individuals indeed do have an undue influence on politics. It has been this way since the days of using the caucus where it was basically what the political elites said goes. While this was ultimately ruled unrepresentative and undemocratic, the American political system still faces the same challenges today. By switching to a direct primary, the people now have more of a voice. However, costs have skyrocketed and have opened the door hostile situations such as buying influence, rewarding political elites, frontloading, and of course, campaign finance issues.

Today’s political campaigns are starting earlier than ever. It is highly likely that some candidates have already begun their “invisible campaign” for the 2012 Presidential Election garnering support and money. These invisible campaigns are necessary because with frontloading becoming more and more common, the actual primary season is starting earlier and earlier every year. According to our text, 3% of the American population (Iowa & New Hampshire) get 30% of the campaign coverage. Because this is so disproportionate, it is likely that if a candidate doesn’t appeal to these two states, he/she won’t be around much longer. If one fails to do well in either state, they lose out on money, media coverage and endorsements (people only want to endorse winners) among other things. Because of this problem, the media is essential creating winners and losers. To think that simply because a candidate doesn’t do well w/ 3% of the population can mean the end of their political run is ridiculous. But that is the case, because the media will then turn it into a horse-race television drama type event.

While this nomination area still needs reform I feel (something along the lines of breaking the country in regions, switching primary dates every four years, etc.), the campaign finance area isn’t in as much need of reform. Yes, the spending amounts are rising to preposterous levels each year and it is very unlikely that a candidate with lesser finances could even produce a good showing in a campaign, we are in a free-market capitalistic America where people are able to spend/give money as they please. A candidate that throws his/her hat into the ring for say a Congressional district with only good ideas and little money shouldn’t be one to complain about having less finances. They should start by running for say a local aldermanic district and then work their way up. Along the way if they are doing their job well they will be able to raise money, get endorsements, and compete for a higher level of office with time.

When it comes down to it, campaign spending isn’t as important as it is made out to be. The only reason candidates spend so much is because they are not sure where their money will produce the best return, so they simply throw money at everything. In all honesty, I feel the main reason a campaign is won or lost is due to valence issues. In the last presidential campaign, Senator McCain could have spent all the money he wanted, but he still wasn’t going to get away from the idea people associate him w/ President Bush and him with the economic downfall. The reliable polls (Gallup, Rasmussen, etc.) showed him leading all the way up until the beginning of October when the market tanked and people associate the market tanking w/ the GOP. At that point, all now President Obama had to do was simply distance himself from it and he was golden.

The idea of campaign finance reform is all good and well, but there will always be people finding loopholes and there really is no way to eliminate those with lots of money from influencing campaigns or buying influence. In addition, is it something we really want?! If we set maxium ammounts or have government funded campaigns, who's to stop my mom's second removed cousins uncles brother from running for president. I for one dont want some average joe-blow running the land of the free; if people have money they want to invest in a campaign they should go for it - and why stop at a threshold set by the government....go big or dont go at all!! FECA sought to limit the cost of campaigns, curtail the influence of organized interests, and involve ordinary citizens more in the process; all of which have failed. The only thing that can be done is to limit it; something that McCain-Feingold has been somewhat successful w/.

Team's Gesture Supports Grieving Opponent

Not even closely related to politics at all...but it's good to get away from the bickering harsh nature of politics sometime and w/ all the negative stories reported in the world, its good to read something good every onece in awhile! It's an ESPN story about a recent Milwaukee Madison HS boys basketball game...check it out.

Republicans Continue to Hammer White House Over Census

Now that the stimulus has finally been passed and about to be signed (reports say tomorrow), controversy still won't leave Washington. The next item of debate involves how the 2010 census will be conducted. President Obama wants the director of the Census Bureau to report to senior White House staffers, something that GOP leaders claim will lead to an "unprecedented politicization of the Census."

Obama plans regular happy hours

President Obama's "Party" Politics.....sounds good to me, think I could get an invitation?!

The "System"

Decentralization is the only realistic way of organization for the American political system. If there would be one large group presiding over each party in control of every aspect, nothing would get accomplished and most people’s interests wouldn’t be accounted for, thus leading to disapproval by the American people. It is similar to America’s Criminal Justice system, also decentralized. The workload in both systems would overwhelm a single body, so multiple groups come together w/ autonomy to create the “system” in America.

As witnessed w/ the September 11th attacks, coordination in the Criminal Justice system was difficult and at best “OK” before, after, and during the attacks. However, party cooperation at different levels w/in the decentralized political system I feel is pretty good. Often times the larger committees will fund candidates in local districts that they feel can swing to their advantage. They also stump for each other, endorse one and other, send staffers to help w/ other campaigns, etc. Parties are even able to quickly come together after bitter battles (e.g. Obama v. Hillary) for the betterment of the party.

W/ this last presidential election, the Democrats got the benefit of low self-esteem towards the GOP, thus propelling them to the White House and both chambers of Congress. While probably not to the extent of winning an election, this low self-esteem is what propels 3rd parties to success in elections normally dominated by the two major parties. All President Obama had to do was play to the center and associate the low approval of President Bush to the GOP and he was golden; which he did and easily won the presidency. However, even being the president doesn’t mean being in control of your respective party.

Because President Obama ran a national election he had to play to a broad range of people, often shifting from his liberal views more towards to the middle to garner votes. He also spoke often of bipartisanship, something that in office he is stressing his colleagues practice. On the other hand, someone who only has to appeal to their district constituents can show their true colors easier; someone such as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. She is only responsible to her people in California, and because liberal thought heavily outweighs conservative thought, she can use her office to play to that w/ national ramifications even though she wasn’t elected nationally. The current Stimulus bill is a prime example of this. She took charge and made it her bill, NOT President Obama’s. Therefore, she is clearly in charge of the party, not President Obama. Obviously this is only a single bill, but it has demonstrated how Pelsoi can flex her muscles and how President Obama is willing to step aside and let her.

As for the GOP, is there really anybody in charge right now?! Technically, Michael Steele is the chair of the RNC so himself, House Minority Leader John Boehner, or Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell should be the leader; but has any of them stepped up?! For the sake of the party, GOP faithful better hope one does, or perhaps a dark horse will come forward towards the next election such as Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal.

Moving forward, hopefully President Obama can regain control of his party from the ideologues such as Pelosi and practice the bipartisanship he pledged. Otherwise American policy will drastically shift to the left and away from where a majority of people sit, the center.

Graham Says Obama Is 'AWOL' on Stimulus Debate

GOP Senator Lindsey Graham, known for often practicing more bipartisanship than his fellow Republicans, calls out President Obama for his lack of leadership on the Stimulus Bill.

Tracking Your Stimulus Money

This was taken from Sean Hannity, and yes, he obviously is a conservative card carrying GOP member...but that's beyond the fact.

$100,000 for doorbells to be installed in buildings (Laurel, MS) -- creates 2 jobs
$6,000,000 to convert hybrid cars to electric plug in cars (Boulder, CO) -- creates 0 jobs
$500,000 for dog park construction (Chula Vista, CA) -- creates 0 jobs
$600,000,000 to create the Heritage Trail (Natchez, MS) -- creates 65 jobs
$1,500,000 for a prostitue shelter (Dayton, OH) -- creates 0 jobs
$500,000,000 to install solar water heaters (Cidra, Puerto Rico) -- creates 14 jobs

Total = Over $1 billion and 81 jobs

Yes, I realize this is a small portion of the money, but these odds and ends crap are burried all over this 600+ page bill, and its ridiculous to think that all this money is going to be wasted when it could be helping the middle-class citizen! And when did hybrid cars become a bad thing that we need to convert them to electric plug in?! I thought hybrid cars were supposed to be so good?!

For President Obama to claim that he didn't think Speaker of the House Nacny Pelosi would allow all this pork in the bill is unacceptable.

However, to President Obama's defense, his caps on wages for businesses/banks getting government money is great! That money should have countless strings tied around it, and it appears it does, as numerous banks have turned down the money.

If Men Were Angles, No Government Would Be Necessary....Federalist No. 51

Political parties, while often criticized, are an essential part of American politics. In simplest terms, a party consists of likeminded people w/ the single interest of gaining and maintaining political power. These likeminded people though are only a small percentage of people, as most people can’t identify 100% with either the Dem's or GOP. Bipartisanship is a direct result of this even, as legislators often cross the isle even in the name of moving ideas forward. The party is not representative of the people’s ideas fully, but they will help translate a majority of preferences into compromised outcomes that as Federalist No. 10 notes will be felt by a majority of the whole.

Parties have been around for as long as the American political system, as there have always been factions among people, and as society grows, the factions grow as well, because with a big society come more factions.

While the party is supposed to be working for the people, it is true that often times they are working for the interest group rather than directly for the people. However, looking at the interest groups such as the NRA or Labor Unions, they ARE working for the people and using their vast knowledge and resources as an intermediary between the people and the political system. These groups take peoples core beliefs, as stated in Federalist No. 10 by James Madison, or religion, how government should be run, and other points near and dear to personal interests, and lobby on the people's behalf. While initially parties only worked for those who owned land, the interest groups today ensure parties are working for everyone.

A party also "guard's one part of the society against the injustice of the other part" as Federalist No. 51 by James Madison illustrates. While Madison made this observation for the promotion of governmental checks and balances, the same holds true for parties. Parties bring each other back to the center of the political spectrum and keep the other in check.

Stimulus is Too Heavy on Spending, Says Growing Number of Senators

Can someone explain to me how $335 million to prevent STD's, $50 million to the Endowment of the Arts, $25 million to ATV trails, and countless millions to after-school snack programs, expanding broadband/wireless connections, and other SPENDING create JOBS and STIMULATE the economy?! Sure, these could be good ideas in a SPENDING bill, but NOT one that is supposed to create jobs and help STIMULATE the economy.

As well as giving money to an operation that should be privatized (Amtrak), funding carbon capture programs, and another $650 million for these TV converter box things (was this government regulated switch really necessary even?!) simply make this bill unacceptable. The Bush administration did a poor job handling this problem, and the Obama administration isn't off to a good start. We need a true bipartisan STIMULUS and not SPENDING bill to be passed soon to move Wall Street to the black, create jobs, and turn our economy around!  In addition, why not add a "Buy-American" clause as well?!

On a brighter note...enjoy the game and Go Steelers!!!

Even jobless, governor can be bleepin' golden

Job ideas for Illinois Governor Blago after he is impeached later on this week...

My Fun & Exciting Life

....not really that fun and exciting, but I'll give it a go! After I finish this class in a few months I'll be graduating from UWM w/ a major in Criminal Justice and minors in Business Admin as well as Political Science. Of which, the only ones I'll actually be using really after graduation are the Business Minor -- the CJ major allowed me to graduate in four years which was a necessity for me and the Poli Sci is simply something I enjoy so I geared all my electives around it.

Upon graduation, I plan on going into retail liquor sales (basically being a sales rep for a company that sells to liquor stores) because my family owns a liquor store and its an industry I already am very knowledgeable in and enjoy. I play an active role in running the day to day operations now and hope to grow in the industry after school. But heck, with today's economy, I might just go work anywhere someone is willing to put my name on a paycheck!

I've never taken an online course before, so this is a new experience for me. I usually procrastinate pretty bad, so I guess that's what I'm most nervous about for this course....but I am writing this blog a week before it's due so maybe thats a sign of things changing?!?! In addition, I hope I can learn as much as I would in a "normal setting" class where there is lecturing and discussion. Since an online course is more on your own, I'm hoping to get at least the same, if not more out of it. The reason I took this course is because I prefer to concentrate on American politics and since the two party system has so many pros and cons, I figured this would be a good course to examine that more in depth.

So all in all, thats me. One other thing is that I live and die by my Chicago Cubs...only 68 days 'till Opening Day!!