As I was reading the Wall Street Journal, I came across an interesting article. The article talks about how the next president will have to deal with high unemployment and an economy heading towards an economic recession. So of course, everyone wants to know what McCain and Obama are going to do about it.
Senator McCain wants to increase corporate taxes from 25% to 35%, and he would keep all of Bush’s current tax cuts on individuals. On the other hand, Obama wants to increase the tax rate for individuals who make more than $250,000 and use the money from that to help cover the tax cuts that he is putting in place for the middle-class workers. Obama believes that if he helps the middle-class he will increase their consumer spending. To go along with this, Senator Obama believes in a second stimulus package while Senator McCain believes we should look into making President Bush’s tax cuts permanent. Although Senator McCain says this he also states, “He is open to a stimulus plan, but hasn’t committed to any specific proposal” (Izzo).
At the end of the article, there was a quote that I found interesting. Mr. Ashworth says, "You can't afford to bail out the financial system and the real economy at the same time." It will be interesting to see how the future president handles the economy and the increasing unemployment rate.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Obama to Guest Star on SNL
Saturday, September 13th, Senator Barack Obama is scheduled to appear on Saturday Night Live. However, this is not his first cameo. He first appeared last Halloween in an opening skit where he was welcomed to a White House Halloween costume party by "Bill and Hillary Clinton". When asked why he did not wear a costume, Obama replied, "I have nothing to hide. I enjoy being myself. I am not going to change who I am just because it's Halloween."
The cameo aired while Obama was behind in the polls to Hillary Clinton. Afterwards, the senator has a fluctuation in his numbers. According to Pollster.com, in October of 2007, Clinton lead Obama 38% to 27%. Two weeks after the SNL episode aired, Clinton gained some cushion with a 45% to 20% lead. Although I do not have significant evidence to conclude the appearance did not boost support, it does raise the question as to will this appearance hurt him?
Sadly enough, Obama may not be present in New York for the show. His campaign advisers have mentioned that if Hurricane Ike continues to southern Texas, his work will displace him there.
Personally, I think revisiting the SNL stage is a very clever and strategic move for the Obama campaign. There is the thought that if a candidate is to visit the Colbart Report or Daily Show, they have gained youth support. I think much is the same for SNL. Obama has banked, figuratively and literally, on the youth voters, so portraying himself as someone who can joke around too will be beneficial.
Although I cannot guarantee he will be dancing with Ellen (check it out on youtube), I have a promising feeling it will be entertaining. In addition, it will definitely be beneficial to reaffirm youth votes and/or gather new ones.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Cease-fire? How about a truce.
Both candidates decided to declare a cease-fire for 9/11, choosing not to "sling-mud", as I like to call it, in rememberance of the horrible terrorist attacks in 2001. John McCain spent the beginning of his day in Shanksville, PA where he participated in memorial ceremony for the victims of UA flight 93 before joining Barack Obama in New York City at Ground Zero for a joint rememberance at Ground Zero. Both rivals met with victims' families and first responders and paid respects to the victims at the reflection pool.
How refreshing is it to not have the vicious back and forth that has characterized this campaign and many campaigns before it? Could you imagine a world in which the battle for the US presidency was not a dirt-digging, mud-slinging campaign where candidates actually focused on broadcasting there issues in their respective TV ads instead of attacking their opponent?
Apparently, happy endings only occur in fairy-tales as the very next day both candidates released new attack ads.
Obama's campaign produced an ad proclaiming that McCain is computer illiterate and cannot even send an e-mail. Is this important to you America? I know it isn't to me. God-forbid McCain has trouble sending e-mails, since there is no way that out of the thousands of government employees could help him with that. And if there isn't, than maybe MC should send our own Michael Case to Washington.
McCain released an ad proclaiming that Obama was being disrespectful and mean to Sarah Palin. Are you an adult McCain? Can you and your campaign handle criticism?
How nice would it be if the candidates would spend there millions of dollars focusing on telling you where they stand on issues instead of spending there millions of dollars telling us how disrespectful one candidate is or how out of touch with technology another is? In my humble opinion, maybe both of these candidates should donate all of their cash-on-hand to several charities and let their debates do the talking, not their attack ads. This way of campaigning does nothing but feeds this countries intense bipartisanship.
How refreshing is it to not have the vicious back and forth that has characterized this campaign and many campaigns before it? Could you imagine a world in which the battle for the US presidency was not a dirt-digging, mud-slinging campaign where candidates actually focused on broadcasting there issues in their respective TV ads instead of attacking their opponent?
Apparently, happy endings only occur in fairy-tales as the very next day both candidates released new attack ads.
Obama's campaign produced an ad proclaiming that McCain is computer illiterate and cannot even send an e-mail. Is this important to you America? I know it isn't to me. God-forbid McCain has trouble sending e-mails, since there is no way that out of the thousands of government employees could help him with that. And if there isn't, than maybe MC should send our own Michael Case to Washington.
McCain released an ad proclaiming that Obama was being disrespectful and mean to Sarah Palin. Are you an adult McCain? Can you and your campaign handle criticism?
How nice would it be if the candidates would spend there millions of dollars focusing on telling you where they stand on issues instead of spending there millions of dollars telling us how disrespectful one candidate is or how out of touch with technology another is? In my humble opinion, maybe both of these candidates should donate all of their cash-on-hand to several charities and let their debates do the talking, not their attack ads. This way of campaigning does nothing but feeds this countries intense bipartisanship.
Education Proposal
While looking at Obama's webpage, I came across an interesting news article about education. This article displayed Obama's proposal of doubling federal funding for charter schools. In his proposal he stressed the importance of the need for financial support and possibly going beyond teaching. Also, he stressed the issue of left versus right; wanting to set aside the typical bickering over public education. Obama argued that both sides have good ideas and use those ideas to make the changes our children need.
I feel that Obama has many strong arguments to improve education in all schools. Have you ever had a teacher in grade school or high school who only taught enough to get by; not asking the students if you understood it or went to extra lengths trying to help you outside of the classroom? Obama's plan of teacher accountability; teacher performance pay and getting rid of the teachers who don't perform is a big possiblity and dramatic change. It will affect the children, but in a good way because we need teachers who are passionate and want to help the children succeed.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/09/09/obamadayton.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
I feel that Obama has many strong arguments to improve education in all schools. Have you ever had a teacher in grade school or high school who only taught enough to get by; not asking the students if you understood it or went to extra lengths trying to help you outside of the classroom? Obama's plan of teacher accountability; teacher performance pay and getting rid of the teachers who don't perform is a big possiblity and dramatic change. It will affect the children, but in a good way because we need teachers who are passionate and want to help the children succeed.
http://www.dispatchpolitics.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/09/09/obamadayton.html?adsec=politics&sid=101
Advertising
http://www.johnmccain.com/tvads
Go to this website and watch the "TV Ads: Education" advertisement. I think this is a very controversial topic. It is about teaching sex education starting in kindergarten. At least that is what I thought after watching it. Now look at an article from the New York Times. Is the advertisement effective?
http://www.nytimes.com
"Learning about sex before learning to read?" is a quote from the video. The McCain ad claims that this is Obama's plan for education, but a news article written by Larry Rohter from the New York Times states otherwise.
According to the article there was a proposal supported by Obama in 2003 to change sex education in the state of Illinois. "The proposal was supported by a coalition of education and public health organizations, including the Illinois Parent Teacher Association, the Illinois State Medical Society, the Illinois Public Health Association and the Illinois Education Association" (Rohter). This proposal was supported by Senator Obama, but it never came to a final vote.
The purpose of the "age and developmentally appropriate" sex education for kindergarten students was to teach them how to stay away from sexual predators or defend themselves against predators if they were attacked. This is where the biggest misunderstanding is in McCain's nationwide commercial.
I know that the elections are personal and the candidates are trying to get ahead of their competition, but isn't there a way to promote yourself without putting others down? It seems to me that the man (or woman) who is leading our country should have integrity and rise above the usual bashing of their opponents. The leader of our country should win because the people of our nation vote for them, not because they did the best job making their competition look like a bad person. I want to vote for a president who has pride in who they are and really wants to move our country forward. Is bashing other presidential candidates really the best way to lead our country?
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Palin for VP – Brilliant or Disastrous?
When I first found out about John McCain choosing Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, I, like many other Americans, was very confused. I had absolutely no idea who she was. Initially, I thought it was a terrible decision choosing a relatively unknown governor from such a small electoral voting state. But, after sitting back and thinking about the decision, I believe it is brilliant.
One of the biggest knocks on McCain is that at 72 years old he is out of touch with the younger generation of Americans and what they are interested in. This move gives his campaign a tie in to the voters that felt like McCain might be out of touch with their values, gaining him their support.
The other two areas where McCain gained support coincide with each other. By choosing Palin, McCain made this a historic election. We will either have the first female vice-president or the first African-American president. This helps McCain possibly gain some female voters and those who are strong supporters of change in the form of a minority in office.
McCain’s decision to choose an unknown as his running mate was a big risk that raised many eyebrows. But after taking a look around the decision and the possible support he could gain, that little extra may be the push he needed to sway the election into his favor.
Obama's Indiana "Homepage"
While perusing Obama's website, I must admit I was surprised to find state-specific sites, despite knowing that it is necessary for any candidate to have great technical support staff. I immediately appreciated the individualism of the site. The main part of the Indiana Homepage shows articles and You Tube videos from Barack's or Michelle's visits to Indiana. Yesterday, Michelle Obama held a "roundtable" in Fishers, Indiana, with working women. She put a lot of stress on how she and Barack understand how hard it can be to raise a family without "policies that support women and working families." Overall there is a lot of talk about, and to, women supporters on the website, which is not surprising.
Also on the site, there is an endorsement video and quotes from Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. A common theme of the site is registering and getting the news out to other Hoosiers to register and vote. There is a direct link to Indiana Voter Registration. Other direct links on the Indiana Homepage are: donate now (of course), volunteer now, intern for Barack, find your local campaign office, join the Hoosier team, and links to other Indiana Obama support groups.
Overall, the site could be used as an easy way to keep involved on Indiana's presence in Obama's campaign.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/inhome
Also on the site, there is an endorsement video and quotes from Indiana Senator Evan Bayh. A common theme of the site is registering and getting the news out to other Hoosiers to register and vote. There is a direct link to Indiana Voter Registration. Other direct links on the Indiana Homepage are: donate now (of course), volunteer now, intern for Barack, find your local campaign office, join the Hoosier team, and links to other Indiana Obama support groups.
Overall, the site could be used as an easy way to keep involved on Indiana's presence in Obama's campaign.
http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/inhome
Obama Courts Michigan Votes
On Monday, Senator Barack Obama continued his pitch for the presidency in the battleground state of Michigan (full story “Obama outlines economic strategy in Michigan” by Debby Elliot at National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94407515). Michigan traditionally votes Democrat because of the blue-collar auto workers concentrated in the eastern part of the state. These same workers are now feeling the effects of the highest unemployment rate in the country as more and more auto industry jobs move elsewhere. Speaking in Flint and Detroit, Obama addressed the concerns of these disillusioned workers: Obama promised to cut taxes on the middle class, offer tuition breaks for community service, and invest in infrastructure to “retool the auto industry.” Standing in front of a hybrid SUV, he postured as the means to realize this community’s dreams.
Communication, image, and appropriate focus all play an important role in the general election. In Flint, Senator Obama spoke at a community college and in Detroit at a town hall meeting, emphasizing his commitment to the domestic auto industry and winning over voters. Change has become a key issue in both campaigns as each candidate seeks to dissociate himself with business as usual in Washington. Both candidates have skillfully wooed different segments of the voting population by discussing the reforms most pertinent to the people they are addressing. People in Michigan are out of work because the automotive jobs have left the state (retooling the auto industry). Some are finding themselves back in school, or with children they want to put through school so they can have access to better jobs (tuition breaks). And taxes on this middle class are making unemployment and tuition payments even more difficult (cutting taxes on the middle class). Standing in front of the hybrid hope for the future of Michigan’s main industry doesn’t hurt either. As Wayne discusses in Chapter 3 of Road to the White House, partisanship is a lens through which we view the campaign; hitting home a message of hope in a state with a Democratic lean will certainly help Obama in November.
The most interesting aspect of this article to me, a Michigan resident, is that it depicts Michigan as one of the key states in the general election while completely ignoring the state’s fiasco of a Democratic primary. Obama campaigning in a state where his name was not even on the primary election ballot is certainly baffling, at first glance. Michigan, together with Florida, decided to move up its primary to January, putting itself on the level of Iowa and further “front-loading” the primary election. I’m unclear as to why this change took place and the problems it posed for the Democrats, but essentially Democrats did not campaign in the state to win its primary delegates, and Hillary Clinton’s name was the only one on the Democratic ticket—not exactly a fair contest (full details at “Fate of Michigan, Florida delegates on the table” by Alex Chadwick at National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90828052). We’ll see if Obama fares better in the general election.
Communication, image, and appropriate focus all play an important role in the general election. In Flint, Senator Obama spoke at a community college and in Detroit at a town hall meeting, emphasizing his commitment to the domestic auto industry and winning over voters. Change has become a key issue in both campaigns as each candidate seeks to dissociate himself with business as usual in Washington. Both candidates have skillfully wooed different segments of the voting population by discussing the reforms most pertinent to the people they are addressing. People in Michigan are out of work because the automotive jobs have left the state (retooling the auto industry). Some are finding themselves back in school, or with children they want to put through school so they can have access to better jobs (tuition breaks). And taxes on this middle class are making unemployment and tuition payments even more difficult (cutting taxes on the middle class). Standing in front of the hybrid hope for the future of Michigan’s main industry doesn’t hurt either. As Wayne discusses in Chapter 3 of Road to the White House, partisanship is a lens through which we view the campaign; hitting home a message of hope in a state with a Democratic lean will certainly help Obama in November.
The most interesting aspect of this article to me, a Michigan resident, is that it depicts Michigan as one of the key states in the general election while completely ignoring the state’s fiasco of a Democratic primary. Obama campaigning in a state where his name was not even on the primary election ballot is certainly baffling, at first glance. Michigan, together with Florida, decided to move up its primary to January, putting itself on the level of Iowa and further “front-loading” the primary election. I’m unclear as to why this change took place and the problems it posed for the Democrats, but essentially Democrats did not campaign in the state to win its primary delegates, and Hillary Clinton’s name was the only one on the Democratic ticket—not exactly a fair contest (full details at “Fate of Michigan, Florida delegates on the table” by Alex Chadwick at National Public Radio http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90828052). We’ll see if Obama fares better in the general election.
McCain: Maverick or Myth?
If you ask someone to describe John McCain’s political career, one word would come to mind, “Maverick.” McCain’s reputation for being a maverick has been under question more and more. The Obama campaign has tried to diminish his partisan accomplishments by trying to show how much McCain and President Bush are alike. The democrats fail to acknowledge the important issues McCain has taken stand on.
Although McCain has said he was a big supporter of the Reagan administration, in 1983 McCain voted against Reagan’s plan to send troops in to Lebanon. McCain’s choice was vindicated when a truck bomber crashed into a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. servicemen and leading to a U.S. withdrawal. In 1992 McCain was one of only three Republicans to vote for Democratic finance reform. McCain’s strong feeling towards finance reform lead to the creation of the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill. In 1994 McCain and John Kerry worked together to end the trade sanctions again Vietnam. McCain also introduced a Bill to give the FDA new powers to regulate tobacco products.
I do not understand how democrats can criticize his “Maverick” status. McCain has had a long history of going out on his own, reaching across party lines and doing what he thinks is right, even if it does not conform to the Republican beliefs.
Although McCain has said he was a big supporter of the Reagan administration, in 1983 McCain voted against Reagan’s plan to send troops in to Lebanon. McCain’s choice was vindicated when a truck bomber crashed into a Marine barracks, killing 241 U.S. servicemen and leading to a U.S. withdrawal. In 1992 McCain was one of only three Republicans to vote for Democratic finance reform. McCain’s strong feeling towards finance reform lead to the creation of the McCain-Feingold-Cochran Campaign Reform Bill. In 1994 McCain and John Kerry worked together to end the trade sanctions again Vietnam. McCain also introduced a Bill to give the FDA new powers to regulate tobacco products.
I do not understand how democrats can criticize his “Maverick” status. McCain has had a long history of going out on his own, reaching across party lines and doing what he thinks is right, even if it does not conform to the Republican beliefs.
McCain's Advertising Strategy
McCain's advertising strategy has been very different than Obama's on the Web and TV. One example of how the candidates advertise is using display ads. McCain's ads have focused more on specific issues with a mix of positive and negative issues. While Obama's ads were "mostly universally positive" and he focused on increasing awareness of his campaign.
In todays fast pace life voters need to be shown the specific issues upfront, so they don't have to search for them. McCain’s is giving a more realistic position with positive and negative issues being shown, while Obama's are only positive. We truly won't know which strategy is better till the final vote happens.
McCain has also been advertising with ads on TV. After he selected his VP choice, McCain’s advertising firm is starting to film add that will feature Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Davis, a chairman of strategic perception for McCain's advertising firm stated "Palin has an optimistic look, she evokes the importance of family and she will appeal to women, especially Midwestern Moms. She looks nothing like a Washington politician."
Once these ads are finished, I bet they will be played the most in the Midwestern states. Since a couple of states in the Midwest are considered to be swing states. McCain’s team is hoping to catch the women of the Midwest, since women are more likely to vote democratic. His team also wants to get the vote of the conservative American families because they make up a portion of the Republican vote.
In todays fast pace life voters need to be shown the specific issues upfront, so they don't have to search for them. McCain’s is giving a more realistic position with positive and negative issues being shown, while Obama's are only positive. We truly won't know which strategy is better till the final vote happens.
McCain has also been advertising with ads on TV. After he selected his VP choice, McCain’s advertising firm is starting to film add that will feature Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. Davis, a chairman of strategic perception for McCain's advertising firm stated "Palin has an optimistic look, she evokes the importance of family and she will appeal to women, especially Midwestern Moms. She looks nothing like a Washington politician."
Once these ads are finished, I bet they will be played the most in the Midwestern states. Since a couple of states in the Midwest are considered to be swing states. McCain’s team is hoping to catch the women of the Midwest, since women are more likely to vote democratic. His team also wants to get the vote of the conservative American families because they make up a portion of the Republican vote.
Political Ceasefire: Honor and Service
McCain and Obama chose to recognize the 7th anniversary of 9/11 by calling a truce for the day. McCain went to Pennsylvania this morning to honor the victims of Flight 93. Both candidates have halted their advertising and plan to be at Ground Zero together to lay wreaths in honor of the victims. Neither of them will be giving an address, and they plan to have a conversation with each other about what they would do if they became president to encourage public service. This conversation is part of the ServiceNation Summit 2008, a two-day event that is part of a larger effort to get Congress to pass bipartisan national community service legislation into law by September 11, 2009.
The first thing I noticed about the articles relating to this story, was the language used to portray what is, quite simply, a break from active campaigning - a time to remember what happened 7 years ago and how we got to where we are today (whatever your view of that is). But the headlines and stories call it a "ceasefire", a "truce", and "a temporary halt to their fierce political skirmishing". I wish the campaigns were just part of a contest in which the best (wo)man wins, and I wish I could say that it's just the media who are making the campaigns out to be a battle. But I don't think that's the case. I think modern campaigning really does rely heavily on negative ads, rumors and unwarranted research into the other candidates, which escalates an otherwise honest campaign into an almost war-like mania that we all get tired of.
It is worth noting that some of the political moves made by candidates are honorable and respectful, like the well-timed effort for calling attention to each of their plans regarding public service. As a result of 9-11, many Americans felt called to serve the country in various ways, and I think it's a good strategy to renew that energy of service on this anniversary date.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1114675720080911?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13367.html
The first thing I noticed about the articles relating to this story, was the language used to portray what is, quite simply, a break from active campaigning - a time to remember what happened 7 years ago and how we got to where we are today (whatever your view of that is). But the headlines and stories call it a "ceasefire", a "truce", and "a temporary halt to their fierce political skirmishing". I wish the campaigns were just part of a contest in which the best (wo)man wins, and I wish I could say that it's just the media who are making the campaigns out to be a battle. But I don't think that's the case. I think modern campaigning really does rely heavily on negative ads, rumors and unwarranted research into the other candidates, which escalates an otherwise honest campaign into an almost war-like mania that we all get tired of.
It is worth noting that some of the political moves made by candidates are honorable and respectful, like the well-timed effort for calling attention to each of their plans regarding public service. As a result of 9-11, many Americans felt called to serve the country in various ways, and I think it's a good strategy to renew that energy of service on this anniversary date.
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN1114675720080911?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews; http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13367.html
O'Bama's Fight for Ohio
Several Democratic strategists believe that O'Bama must win the electoral votes from Ohio to compete in this years election. Winning southeast Ohio, or Appalachia as some refer to it, is considered to be the key in obtaining the 20 electoral votes. Concern has developed amongst Democratic strategists due to O'Bama's popularity in the region during the Democratic primaries. O'Bama was drastically defeated during the Democratic primaries by Senator Clinton who won 81% of the total votes. Democratic Strategists believe several factors play a role in O'Bama's struggle to gain popularity in southeast Ohio. People simply aren't ready, or willing, to vote for a black man. The total population of black voters in the region is near 2%. Finally, O'Bama must do a better job of connecting with small town and rural voters.
History confirms the statement that winning southeast Ohio equals winning the White House. Democratic candidates have won the region three times in the previous 10 presidential elections. Those happen to be the only three times the Democrats have won Ohio, and won the White House in the past 40 years.
My thoughts....
Ohio has the potential to be a major factor in the election as a swing state. The 20 electoral votes that Ohio possesses makes it extremely valuable. As history shows, the winner of Ohio tends to dictate the winner of the election. The short term force I feel that O'Bama should focus on more in Ohio is connecting with small town and rural voters. I personally believe this issue could influence a lot of voters in Ohio due to the amount of small town and rural voters that exist. The fact that Ohio played such a decisive role in the 2004 election means its importance will only grow in 2008. History and current events are only proving Ohio's importance in the 2008 election. I tend to agree with history, and as history states the road to the white house is paved through Ohio; therefore Ohio must be won.
History confirms the statement that winning southeast Ohio equals winning the White House. Democratic candidates have won the region three times in the previous 10 presidential elections. Those happen to be the only three times the Democrats have won Ohio, and won the White House in the past 40 years.
My thoughts....
Ohio has the potential to be a major factor in the election as a swing state. The 20 electoral votes that Ohio possesses makes it extremely valuable. As history shows, the winner of Ohio tends to dictate the winner of the election. The short term force I feel that O'Bama should focus on more in Ohio is connecting with small town and rural voters. I personally believe this issue could influence a lot of voters in Ohio due to the amount of small town and rural voters that exist. The fact that Ohio played such a decisive role in the 2004 election means its importance will only grow in 2008. History and current events are only proving Ohio's importance in the 2008 election. I tend to agree with history, and as history states the road to the white house is paved through Ohio; therefore Ohio must be won.
Which Is More Important: Fighting Terrorism or Fixing the Economy?
Seven years after the terrorist attacks of September 11th, the majority of Americans express little worry about being directly affected by a terrorist attack. According to the latest Gallup poll (cited on politico.com), terrorism does not appear to greatly influence Americans' choice for a new president, as only 12% consider terrorism to be the most important factor influencing their vote. Americans have not been making the terrorism issue a top priority in the current presidential campaign.
The poll indicates that Americans would prefer a presidential candidate whose greatest strength is fixing the economy, rather than an ability to handle terrorism. This probably results from the huge volume of negative economic news in recent months compared with a more muted discussion of the war on terror.
On John McCain's website in the "Why McCain" section, 14 topics are listed in what appears to be an order of importance to voters. The top five issues are: the economy, health care, national security, education, and Iraq. Of course any increased attention to the issue of terrorism is most likely to benefit John McCain, as many recent polls indicate that people feel McCain would better handle to issue of terrorism, this listing on his website shows that the McCain clan is aware that the economy is of most importance to voters.
Which is more important to you: a president who can effectively fight terrorism and keep America safe or a president who can fix the economy?
The poll indicates that Americans would prefer a presidential candidate whose greatest strength is fixing the economy, rather than an ability to handle terrorism. This probably results from the huge volume of negative economic news in recent months compared with a more muted discussion of the war on terror.
On John McCain's website in the "Why McCain" section, 14 topics are listed in what appears to be an order of importance to voters. The top five issues are: the economy, health care, national security, education, and Iraq. Of course any increased attention to the issue of terrorism is most likely to benefit John McCain, as many recent polls indicate that people feel McCain would better handle to issue of terrorism, this listing on his website shows that the McCain clan is aware that the economy is of most importance to voters.
Which is more important to you: a president who can effectively fight terrorism and keep America safe or a president who can fix the economy?
Cosmetic Campaigning
The election is quickly approaching the fourth stage of campaign communication: the general election. This is now a time when candidates must meet their campaign expectations and legitimize the political system. However, in the most recent of backyard shenanigans, both Obama and McCain are exchanging hateful words; but for what purpose?
Many people do expect politics to turn ugly, so some may not be surprised at the recent comments each candidate has thrown at one another. Obama added fuel to the fire yesterday by stating, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." This was in reference to McCain's promise of change. However, there is also a direct reference to Palin's comment about what separates a soccer mom from a pit bull: lipstick. With all this smearing of lipstick at this stage of the campaign process, one must ask, "Why so serious?"
The problem with resorting to smearing and provoking the competition at this stage of the campaign lies within the function of legitimizing the political system. Each candidate has already gained the trust of millions of voters, showed their qualifications for nomination, and established a role as a leader. Now, with only two months left before election day, the communication from the candidates to the public is fading. In order to keep up with technology, they are creating stories from smearing rather than policy. As a result, the voter may be confused as to where to get information and which information is true.
Whether we find lipstick on a blue collar or a white collar is irrelevant to how the campaign should be communicating right now. It is a time to hammer in the essential policy details and to inform the public of what is to come. Obama and McCain both must be aware of the effects their communication has on the political process, and by resorting to this kind of communication they are undermining the political process.
This could be the beginning of a snowball effect. Many predict there is more lipstick smacking to come.
Many people do expect politics to turn ugly, so some may not be surprised at the recent comments each candidate has thrown at one another. Obama added fuel to the fire yesterday by stating, "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." This was in reference to McCain's promise of change. However, there is also a direct reference to Palin's comment about what separates a soccer mom from a pit bull: lipstick. With all this smearing of lipstick at this stage of the campaign process, one must ask, "Why so serious?"
The problem with resorting to smearing and provoking the competition at this stage of the campaign lies within the function of legitimizing the political system. Each candidate has already gained the trust of millions of voters, showed their qualifications for nomination, and established a role as a leader. Now, with only two months left before election day, the communication from the candidates to the public is fading. In order to keep up with technology, they are creating stories from smearing rather than policy. As a result, the voter may be confused as to where to get information and which information is true.
Whether we find lipstick on a blue collar or a white collar is irrelevant to how the campaign should be communicating right now. It is a time to hammer in the essential policy details and to inform the public of what is to come. Obama and McCain both must be aware of the effects their communication has on the political process, and by resorting to this kind of communication they are undermining the political process.
This could be the beginning of a snowball effect. Many predict there is more lipstick smacking to come.
Obama Embraces Charter Schools
On Tuesday, Barack Obama promised to double funding for charter schools and replace inferior teachers. Many of Obama's comments were directed at a solution that required Democrats and Republicans to work together to solve the issue over failing schools. Obama was quoted as saying, "There's partisanship and there's bickering, but there's no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we'll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need." He went on to say, "And we've fallen further and further behind as a result. If we're going to make a real and lasting difference for our future, we have to be willing to move beyond the old arguments of left and right and take meaningful, practical steps to build an education system worthy of our children and our future.
An interesting bit of information that I found later in the article was that currently the government spends roughly $200 million dollars annually on charter schools. With Obama's plan, that number will be bumped up to over $400 million annually. This will not only help these schools obtain the resources that they need to help their students succeed, but with the stricter guidelines enforced on the teachers as well, it will force them to perform at a higher level, or risk possibly losing their jobs.
An interesting bit of information that I found later in the article was that currently the government spends roughly $200 million dollars annually on charter schools. With Obama's plan, that number will be bumped up to over $400 million annually. This will not only help these schools obtain the resources that they need to help their students succeed, but with the stricter guidelines enforced on the teachers as well, it will force them to perform at a higher level, or risk possibly losing their jobs.
Autumn Angst
Since the Republican National Convention in St. Paul, Minnesota, the polls have begun to swing in McCain's favor. This has some of the Democratic Party's most experienced member's worried. What began as a sure thing has dwindled to uncertainty. Obama needed to define himself in the summer, which he failed to do. Now Obama and his campaign are struggling to find a consistent economic message.
Over the past few months I've heard from multiple people that Obama is going to win in November. Even if he has the advantage, it's still not a sure thing. McCain has gotten closer and closer to him in the polls. There's still plenty of time left for Obama to get back on track, but he needs to do more than give a great speech to win over voters. The speech needs to get specific and to the point so voters have something solid to support rather than just "change."
Over the past few months I've heard from multiple people that Obama is going to win in November. Even if he has the advantage, it's still not a sure thing. McCain has gotten closer and closer to him in the polls. There's still plenty of time left for Obama to get back on track, but he needs to do more than give a great speech to win over voters. The speech needs to get specific and to the point so voters have something solid to support rather than just "change."
Struggle in Alaska
Recently, both campaign teams have turned their attention towards Alaska, and surprisingly the issue has nothing to do with drilling for oil but everything to do with digging up some dirt on the state's governor and Senator McCain's running-mate, Sarah Palin. Although, an Obama spokesperson has released a statement denying the Obama campaign has sent researchers to the state, many more resources have reason to believe they, in fact, have. The Obama campaign also did not deny the existence of and research being conducted by Democratic lawyers about Palin's religious beliefs, family, and other trivial rumors. Members of the Alaskan Republican Party claim they have witnessed and conversed with these Democratic researchers, who openly admitted they were working for the Obama campaign. Of course, the McCain campaign has responded by sending a rebuttal group of supporters whose goal is to defend Palin against what they deem unfair attacks. The behavior in Alaska is not at all surprising and will probably continue through the rest of the election, especially if one of the candidates begin to slip in the polls.
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/political-teams-battle-to-define-palin-in-alaska/
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/political-teams-battle-to-define-palin-in-alaska/
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
White Women Flocking to McCain--Will It Last?
Today on politco.com in the "arena" section (see link), there were some interesting comments concerning the support of John McCain by white females after naming Sarah Palin as his running mate.
One analyst suggests that Palin is a prime example of the "idealized" Republican woman--"pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God." However, most agree that the current buzz over the Republican VP nominee will not last.
My thoughts...
While I was initially intrigued by Palin, I must admit that her over-zealous use of religious language scares me. Even as a white woman, raised in a religious home, I still appreciate the importance of a leader who is attractive to people of all religions, or to those who observed none at all. (What happened to separation of church and state?)
But then again, from a campaigning standpoint, I am the sure the religious affiliations of the future president/vice president rank highly in importance for many Americans, and in that sense, is a very effective strategy to make multiple references to Christianity. (I'm just not buying it.)
There can be too much of a good thing.
One analyst suggests that Palin is a prime example of the "idealized" Republican woman--"pro-life, pro-gun, pro-God." However, most agree that the current buzz over the Republican VP nominee will not last.
My thoughts...
While I was initially intrigued by Palin, I must admit that her over-zealous use of religious language scares me. Even as a white woman, raised in a religious home, I still appreciate the importance of a leader who is attractive to people of all religions, or to those who observed none at all. (What happened to separation of church and state?)
But then again, from a campaigning standpoint, I am the sure the religious affiliations of the future president/vice president rank highly in importance for many Americans, and in that sense, is a very effective strategy to make multiple references to Christianity. (I'm just not buying it.)
There can be too much of a good thing.
Brown Protestors Unfair
The criticism against Prime Minister Brown is unfair. As I sit back and read about the remarks that Brown said I do not understand why protestors are jumping on his back. He simply stated that he agreed with one of the policies that Senator Obama was supporting, he did not state that he backed Obama. I believe that this is a strategized move by the Mccain campaign to try to get backing from oversees and put pressure on Brown to side with him in hopes that they will support his campaign, and that would possibly help him get votes from people stateside. Again, I do not see anything wrong with the comments that Brown made and I think people are blowing these out of proportion, and they could end up hurting our relationships with other nations.
Palin Proves Interesting Choice for VP Nod
Like most Americans, I had not heard of Sarah Palin before her nomination for Vice President. So I was naturally curious to see her appearance at the Republican National Convention. While she was impressive, I wonder if McCain’s choice was really the best one available. First, if choosing her was based solely on trying to steal
Because of this move, this election will now undoubtedly produce a historic result. Either
What's John McCain been up to?
(1) Since the close of the Republican Convention last week, the McCain-Palin team has seen public opinion polls go up in their favor and they campaigned for the first time in northern
(2) In regards to campaign advertising and web presence, the McCain-Palin team has released both a new TV ad (only airing in select states) and also a new web ad. (Which Andrew has somewhat touched base on) Here's a link to the new TV ad about Sarah Palin...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LK4oWay1VbE
(3) Although public opinion poll numbers for a particular candidate do tend to rise directly after a convention, I think McCain’s choice of Sarah Palin for his running mate will help to keep the support coming. On one hand, there have been several news stories released recently that emphasize Palin’s ability to energize women from all walks of life and from all ideological beliefs. On the other hand, her lack of foreign policy experience could hurt the team. Overall, I think the team would be able to accomplish many tasks in the White House with their ability to cross party lines, which McCain has already done on numerous occasions. Another impressive quality about John McCain’s politics is his record of resisting earmarks.
http://www.johnmccain.com/informing/news/newsreleases/bc101987-bc84-492d-93cc-c200356c15cf.htm
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/09/10/report-mccain-a-hero-to-taxpayers/
"Lipstick on a Pig"
Today the McCain campaign has used tactics to take voters off the issues of healthcare, gas prices, the economy, and many other issues facing every American. The McCain campaign released an internet ad suggesting that Obama was "Sexist" because they believe he was refering to Sarah Palin as a pig. The phrase that Obama used was "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig." The McCain campaign is dead set that he was refering to Palin a pig. At the same time John McCain himself has used the same phrase along with many other Republican senators and congressman. The phrase itself actually refers to different ways a candidate can throw spin around an issue to hide the truth. In other words a tactic to cover up the truth. Obama was saying that McCain and his campaign were covering up the truth about the issues. To suggests that Obama called Palin a pig is totally wrong and just a way the McCain campaign and divert from the issues to keep people focused on sideshows. The issues come first and it will be the issues that will promote real change in the future and not political sideshows.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
