Group items tagged

This article addresses the effect of George Bush's legacy on the current election and how it was reflected in the conventions. Clinton, in his speech at the DNC, compared the net job creation of the two parties. This article says that ultimately, not just this sentence but Clinton's entire speech came down to that point: evoking the successes of the Democrats while reminding voters of the many failures of George W. Bush. Clinton's presence, the article says, turned the race into Obama and Clinton vs. Romney and Bush. The article cites some interesting historical examples of presidents who were able to win despite the temporary unpopularity of their parties at the time, and how those candidates distanced themselves from the failed policies with concrete, factual differences in their philosophies. Romney, the article says, has failed to do so.

Great post. I really enjoyed reading this article because I do believe that the legacy of the last elected party plays a major role in future elections. If a president from a particular party succeeds in his own term, his political party gains more credibility because people will connect a president's success with his party. For example(hypothetically speaking), If a democratic president successfully relieves the U.S from economic depression, in the future if depression occurs people would begin to think a democrat is the right candidate to fix the problem.

I agree that the Republican's avoidance of anything too heavily Bush-related is not working in their favor, and like this article notes, whenever a political sensitivity makes a candidate vulnerable, ignoring it is certainly not the best course of action. But this article also shows how Romney is just not well-suited to actually addressing the past failures of Republicans, both because of the early failures in his campaign to sell himself as the type of economically-focused candidate voters want and his unclear values and opinions, and makes it clear that the Republican who will erase the legacy of Bush will not be Romney.

This article stood out to me, because it is exactly why I see Romney's plans as a completely the opposite of what American needs: they aren't any different than George W. Bush's. Americans saw what happened under George W. Bush, and nobody wants to go back to that. This line in the piece really summed up why Romney is doing so poorly, "To win the kind of victory that conservatives seem to think they should be winning, the Republican Party needs two things: A domestic agenda that offers more to hard-pressed families than just generic conservative rhetoric about the genius of capitalism, and a foreign policy program that reflects the hard lessons learned in Iraq and Afghanistan." As a liberal, I would never vote for Mitt Romney, but I do understand that the economy is not where a lot of people wanted it to be after Obama's first term. The question is: can Romney do a better job? I see a lot of similarities between Romney's policies and George W. Bush's policies, so I think that the economy would do worse. If other Americans, like the author of this article, see the same similarities, I don't see how Romney can win in November.

I think it is interesting, and absurd, how the Republican Party has looked for things to blame on some of their failings on. That being said, I also think it is unfair that past President's records affect prospective candidates chances, on either side of the political spectrum. Just because Romney is in the same political party as Bush dos not mean he will do similar things(even though he probably will do some). I agree with Anna that Romney and Ryan need to separate from Bush to establish that they are not the same and will not have the same results. Regardless of their policies I believe that candidates should be evaluated on their merits, and while the past should be considered, and their merits alone. To me, that is what this article is really saying.

Cameron, I agree with your idea - that parties can shift, and individual candidates shouldn't be bound into the economic principles of their party - but until Romney provides substantive plans for the economy, all anyone is going to hear from his campaign is the same conservative "free market" rhetoric that they heard from the Bush campaign. What he needs to do is lay out a specific plan and note what he's learned from the economic failure under Bush and how that has shaped his plan.

I found this op-ed piece interesting, because I think it gets at the underlying problem with the current Republican party: there is no room for middle ground, because nowadays that means weakness. Although a centrist to philosophy to all problems does not work, I thought Friedman painted a nice picture of why little gets done in Washington due to the stark contrasts between the two parties. Basically, radicalization of the Republican party is one of the biggest problems with the current political situation.

This one really echoes a lot of what I've been hearing about the republican party. It seems like the tea-partiers have gotten big enough that the Republicans are shifting to the right so as to avoid a tea party candidate cropping up and splitting the vote (I read that somewhere, don't remember where). This issue really just reinforces, for me at least, the problems with the two-party system. Instead of having three parties, two for sane people and one for the tea partiers, the republicans have found themselves in a situation where they're straddling the widening chasm between moderates and radicals, and it seems to me like they've chosen the radical side as their base.

I found this article interesting because it addresses the problems with both parties concerning national debt. I really enjoyed how the article poked fun at the election, saying " we celebrate the fact that it might include a serious debate about one of the four great issues of the day, though even that is not clear yet". After reading this article, I am beginning to think more of a conservative approach is needed to fix the issue in America concerning debt. Although in the past conservative presidents(George Bush Sr., Reagan) have used tax revenue and budget cuts to fix debt, I do not think it is out of reach for President Obama to fix debt issues in another 4 years if he takes a more "right-winged" approach. I do believe the job of fixing national debt is not the job for a radical member of the G.O.P or a very strong liberal, but for the best candidate who can make the most people happy while doing what is best for the country with a strong approach.

This editorial written by Danielle Pletka, of the conservative American Enterprise Institute criticizes Romney's foreign policy speech on Monday October 8th for offering little in the way of either vision or specifics to separate himself from Obama. Plettka writes that Romney, "sensed an opening" in foreign policy after the Obama administration appeared to bungle the September 11 Libyan attack. She says that Romney needs to show voters that "he's not simply George Bush retread" itching to declare war on Iran and Syria. It is interesting that this conservative thinks that no Republicans have made a case that they will actually do anything differently than Obama. She suggests that Romney help voters connect American global power with prosperity, its dominance of the world's important waterways with flourishing trade and the exporting of democratic ideals with more open "nourished markets. She refers to the importance of the US's "benign" influence since WWII. Look up benign..it doesn't mean the war, death and violence we seen in Iraq and Afghanistan . What she means is that the U.S. has never interfered for 'malevolent" reasons. It's hard to imagine how the US would be perceived as benign in all of the military intervention.

This article shows pretty well a lot of what we've seen of Romney. It seems like his campaign is just based on criticizing Obama, and since there's an opening in the foreign policy area he's moved away from the economy. He's looking for criticisms to make without offering substantive policy proposals, and I think that's because Obama's policies are basically centrist policies. It's a weird situation that Obama, as a moderate, has this unique ability to inspire so much vitriol among the conservative right, and Romney's trying to capitalize.

I'm in the foreign policy group for the issues project at school, and I can tell you with certainty that the differences between Obama and Romney in terms of foreign policy are very small. It is more of a philosophical difference. In reality, the troops will leave Afghanistan in 2014, we will most likely not send troops to Syria or Iran, and we will continue to support Israel, regardless of who is president. Romney is really just trying to create a contrast between his foreign policy and Obama's, but there aren't any major differences, so he has latched onto this whole Libya thing.

This article addresses the potential of Obama's second term. Andrew Sullivan is a great writer (you all should look at his blog) and in this piece he predicts that in the event of an Obama win, several things would happen. First, he says, the Republican party would (might) experience a kind of whiplash from its extreme radicalization and loss, becoming more moderate. This - the cooperation of the Republicans in the Senate - could allow Obama to become a bi-partisan hero, dealing with the deficit and immigration reform. Why he chose Reagan to compare to I don't really know, but it's an interesting read.

I like the idea in this article that you brought up Cody, about Obama becoming a widely supported bipartisan President if he wins again, but it is pretty debased throughout by the constant references to today's great polarization between left and right. While the great partisanship between states and people and politicians is mentioned about other ideas, it seems pretty dreamy to think Obama could sidestep this in terms of his own legacy. Though Obama may not be able to change how the right perceives him, I think the difference between Sullivan's prediction about Republicans becoming more centrist compared to earlier ideas we have discussed where Republicans just become further absorbed in their sparsely-supported and deeply conservative views is really interesting and I am fascinated to see how that plays out. I can see how another win for Obama would lead Republicans to reconsider their platform and targeted voting blocs, but also the idea of withdrawing into their misguided viewpoints in a protectionist-type way also makes sense.

Well, it looks like what Sullivan predicted is right. The Republicans did experience a "whiplash" for all of their super right wing policies. I heard an interesting statistic that if the Republicans hadn't been able to do so much redistricting for their house seats, demographically, they would have lost the majority in the house.

This article addresses a point that hit home with me from the Democratic National Convention: Obama brought up climate, but did not champion it in the same style and with the same conviction that he used to. Even while I was struck by his lack of gusto on the subject, the article is surprised that he brought it up at all. This issue has seen barely any coverage at all, with Romney in particular suggesting that even caring about climate change is shallow and ungrounded. He has continued to basically ridicule Obama's (self-proclaimed) devotion to the issue, which is not typical even for mainstream republicans. Obama himself has been almost entirely silent on the issue for the entire campaign (he brought up the term once in 2012). This article makes a really good partner for the first one Eli posted, which dealt with the variety of issues that the radicalization of parties has effectively silenced the debate over. As with the issue of immigration, we see the Republican Party leaning extremely right and making any productive discussion of the issue difficult. If Romney himself treats climate change as a joke and mocks environmentalism as a cause, how can the sides even begin to discuss specific issues of policy? I am honestly really doubtful of Obama's stance as an environmentalist: after the failure of one of his recent cap-and-trade policies, the term "climate change" was entirely avoided in his speech. I remember Dan saying in class that if Obama didn't claim to champion these issues during his presidency, you wouldn't be able to tell by his policy. From this article's description of his rhetoric for the last year, I would say that now he is neither talking the talk nor walking the walk, leaving his affiliation to this cause simply to the fact that he is a Democratic candidate and climate change is a "Democratic issue". To me, there is concrete proof that neither candidate has been taking climate change seriously this election. If both candidates are treating this

I recently heard an interview with Michael Lewis who wrote an article for Vanity Fair that involved spending a lot of day to day time with Obama. One of the things he talked about was Obama's view of his ability to use his position as president as a "bully pulpit." Obama told Lewis that his experience had been that he, in particular, was such a lightning rod for negative response, that when he took a position conservative journalists and politicians automatically responded so negatively that it was more useful for him to operate more subtly. I would imagine that he was using his speech at the convention to let voters know that he still wants to do something about climate change, and takes it seriously. Hopefully, he will be in a position to do this when he is not thinking about re-election.

I think the way Obama has treated climate change as an economic issue is very compelling. One of the main issues that people have with renewable energy is that isn't currently economically sustainable. I think Obama can work on the issue of climate change with the economy in mind and that is what he is doing. The issue that Obama faces on bringing the climate change issue into the economic realm is the Solyndra investment that the government made under his administration. Obama needs to walk the fine line between championing climate change and doing what's best for the economy.

As the election approaches, some Americans are begging to wonder what stance each candidate has concerning marijuana legalization. The article points out that more than 70% of voters are in favor of medical marijuana but a reason for marijuana prohibition could be for excess use of marijuana for those who already illegally use marijuana. I believe the "black market" created by the use of marijuana in so many Americans could be used to stimulate the economy if marijuana were legal. If marijuana was controlled by the government and taxed liked alcohol the profits made would be tremendous. The millions of dollars our government spends locking people up for marijuana possession could be used on other things that would help to promote the welfare of our nation. Due to the growing support of Americans, marijuana legalization is now not so far from reach and could possibly be a deciding factor in the upcoming election. Thoughts anyone?

I believe marijuana legalization is not widely recognized as being an aspect that can stimulate our economy, but if more American's were open to the option many economists predict that the savings made by the U.S government would be in the tens of billions of dollars... PER YEAR(http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/17/economists-marijuana-legalization_n_1431840.html). If marijuana were legal it would be one of the largest grossing cash crops along with corn and wheat. Despite Marijuana being illegal it already generates a lot of money that could be used to help pay for schools,roads,public buildings...ect instead of being an "under the table" deal for the most part. Marijuana legalization would not be just for your everyday pot-head, Hemp productions would go through the roof ranging from products like paper to clothing. Some of our founding fathers including George Washington and Thomas Jefferson grew hemp, and the first draft of The Declaration of Independence was written on hemp paper. The benefits as a result of Marijuana legalization would be tremendous for our struggling economy. In conclusion I disagree Eli, Marijuana legalization has the potential to play a big role in government relatively soon.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I can't help but agree with Eli that this may not be a key issue in the election (this one, at least). The party radicalization our group has been talking a lot about informs my opinion on this. With the growing rift between Democrats and Republicans, and the increasingly radical that are now accepted as mainstream, it seems unlikely to me that legalization will be taken as seriously as it should. Before all of the logistics that Miles brings up could even get debated, I think the issue itself would get wrapped up in a huge amount of party rhetoric (free enterprise, policing moral values, etc.) and the dialogue would get shut down. It seems like the only big topic that can get any traction in terms of debate is the economy/jobs. Even things like climate change and immigration aren't being talked about constructively, so I see legalization going the same way. I think the points you brought up about it are totally true, I just imagine the candidates losing sight of an issue like this.