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.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
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?!?!
Wednesday, February 18, 2009
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/.
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/.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
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.
Monday, February 16, 2009
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."
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Obama plans regular happy hours
President Obama's "Party" Politics.....sounds good to me, think I could get an invitation?!
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
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.
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.
Friday, February 6, 2009
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.
Thursday, February 5, 2009
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.
$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.
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, February 1, 2009
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!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)