Dole Group

This piece begins to shake out the specific effects tax cuts have on economic growth. With so much general back and forth arguing about this, it is useful to look at the graph included in this article and try to understand what it really tells us. The graph that maps the economic growth between 1987 and 2005 clearly shows that the economy grew dramatically after the Bush and Clinton tax increases and dropped dramatically after the Bush tax cuts. But, what is most interesting is the discussion about other factors affecting the economy. Paul Ryan says that the increase was affected by the tech boom, lower trade barriers and peace. According to the conservative economists, the economy had already slowed before Bush's tax cuts and surprisingly, Glen Hubbard, who helped write Bush's plan is quoted saying that, " tax cut's don't translate quickly into higher growth. According to the Tax Policy Center, a "highly regarded" non-partisan group, "it's hard to make the argument that tax rates have a big effect on economic growth." So, this makes me wonder, what exactly are Ryan and Romney proposing and why do they think it will improve the economy? One very interesting point that is made is that tax cuts did make a difference when to top marginal rate was 70%..who knew that it was ever that high. According to this article, between, 1940 and 1980, taxes were that high at tech top. That is very different than today's 35%.

I don't have much to add here, but I fully support at tax rate of 70% or so after someone's income has reached a certain mark. That will never happen in America, but if we look at a lot of other countries in the world with high taxes, they have far fewer expenses to pay for (i.e. education, healthcare, etc.)

This is interesting. It's important to be thinking that there obviously were other factors going on during all these periods, but with all the discussion of - like John says - whether tax cuts actually work or not, this graph is an interesting way of understanding their role in the economy.

I like this article because it shows that Romney is finally focusing on a part of the election in which he has experience and knowledge. Voters are most concerned with the election and if Romney can show that he can fix it then he will increase his chances of winning, which is why this move is smart. I do; however, think that he should establish that he has his own economic plans and distance himself from Ryan's ideas, as those tend to scare away prospective voters and are absurd.

great post. I agree with mabel also because Romney's plan for the economy needs to be way more convincing than Ryan's for him to win the election.I think its very important that the candidates really lay out a play for what needs to be changed. I do think it is necessary for Romney to separate himself from Ryan's economic plan. Romney has taken no stance on Ryan's economic plan for severly cutting government expenses leading to believe he does not agree with this plan because if he did he would give his support.

I agree with what all of you have said about Romney needing to focus on the economy in order to win. The other night I was watching the news and they were going through different poles. One of the questions was who people trusted with the economy, and Romney was up by almost 20 points. It seems to me that the economy is the most important issue in this election, but Romney still can't seem to edge ahead. That shows to me that his campaign has made a big mistake by not focusing on the economy.

As I watched the video of Romney making those inflammatory remarks (here: http://www.motherjones.com/transition/inter.php?dest=http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/secret-video-romney-private-fundraiser) about these "freeloaders," I wondered how this would play out politically. I loved this op-ed piece, because it did a nice job of explaining the political impact of Romney's remarks. Conservatives have been bashing Obama and the democrats for criticizing success and instigating class warfare. To me, this is actual class warfare; Romney has divided Americans into two categories of "makers and moochers" that is completely un-American. If the Romney campaign thinks he can win running on ideas like this, I think they are truly mistaken.

I agree that Romney should not have said those things about Americans and that using terms such as free-loaders suggests a lack of understanding, but reading this article reminded me of an article I read in Fortune magazine called "Is It Still OK to be Rich in America?" This article offered a different perspective on recent ideas about the American economy and the "1%". Overall it talked about how instead of trying to bring the rich down we should not make them out to be villains, but instead try to see what they did to become successful. There are a lot of people in this country who have had things handed to them and that needs to change. People need to realize that the American Dream is not equal outcome, but equal opportunity. An interesting statistic in the article was that even if all of the money that the 1% made was split with the 99%, as some people have wanted, the income would be less than half the income that people would make if they had a college degree, and by that I mean a legit degree, not French Art Underground Gothic History Degree.

Cameron, I understand where you're coming from in terms of people needing work hard if they want to succeed, but where do you expect people that work hard but don't come from wealthy families to get the money for college? Someone on student-aid at at a public university would fall into that 47% that Romney referred to. This money for college is not a hand-out, but rather should be looked at as a right. If people in this country work hard enough to get into college, America needs tap into those hard workers by paying for their college education. So if we take a look at how those people in the "1%" were successful, they probably went to college. In order for people in this country to go to college, a lot of them need aid from the government. On another less important note, your comment about a "French Art Undergound Gothic History Degree" frustrates me. There is nothing wrong with someone pursuing a career in art if that is what they are interested in. Art is an extremely important part of self expression and as a country, I believe we are too focused on the conventional notion that success means being wealthy.

This is a very interesting article about using "micro-targeting" to tailor messages to the "favorably disposed but need a push to actually vote". The writer, James Surowiecki, cites a new book, The Victory Lap, that describes the increasing use of studies done by political scientists to plan political strategy. The studies found out that the best run campaigns perfect the mix of new technology to get specific data about individual shopping habits, voting histories, charity donations to target potential voters and then reach them using the concrete, personal door to door , face to face discussions. It's interesting to read that all the hundreds of millions spent on ads do little to recruit new voters or convince them to go to the polls. It turns out that good old social pressure is one of the most powerful forces to get people to vote. Since voting records are public (something I didn't know), one study used the threat of notifying neighbors if you didn't vote. It motivated most people to get to the polls. What's most interesting to me about this book and the studies it cites is that this kind of information hasn't been used sooner in campaigns. Why waste all that money on adds? Use it to improve schools or something that can truly make a difference.

The mechanics that you're talking about are really interesting to me, mainly because of how completely foreign they are. Having grown up in California for my whole life, I get the feeling that I'm missing out on a big part of the process that a lot of the country experiences. What you're saying about the small impact of ads is honestly terrifying to me, given how much money is funneled to a candidate through these Super PAC's, etc. These makes the "free speech question" with respect to campaign finance seem totally irrelevant to me: whether free speech or not, the amount of money spent on ads is totally flagrant and inexcusable if they are not even accomplishing much at all. The way you mention cash being directed to better causes makes me think of the "working hard, not working smart" quip that the author makes. From what I can tell, it would be really hard to set lasting limits on soft money in campaigns, but the least the candidates could do is spend it in an effective way, not just airing primetime ads because it seems like the thing to do.

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.

Week 4. This opinion piece looks at the foreign policy credentials of both candidates, especially in light of the embassy storming in Libya and other similar incidents in the Middle this past week. The author paints this interval as weak for both Romney and Obama: Romney for his bizarre and inflammatory comments just after the murder of the ambassador and members of his staff, and Obama for not painting a clear picture of American intentions regarding the attack ("the only thing that can be said for Barack Obama's leadership this week is that he's not Mitt Romney"). He points to the increasing public unease about our presence in the Middle East as the perfect opportunity, a "teachable moment," for Obama to make his position clear. The author presents a conflicting message: as a foreign policy advisor, he would suggest this type of speech, but as a campaign advisor, he would warn against it. With all the talk of the Bush legacy in mind, I think this topic could be of huge advantage to both candidates (more so for Obama) if it were used properly. Obama has the chance to distance himself from the early-2000's surge that much of the public regards as a disaster, and distinguish the profile he plans on having in the region from bumbling foreign policy. I think the strides he has made in his first term toward ending our conflicts are pretty questionable. However, he seems in a prime position right now to ride out whatever he has accomplished for the next few months. Romney kind of made a fool of himself after the attacks, and Obama is not really capitalizing on this. It seems he's been doing good work on this front (the way he has been handling the protests in Egypt, according to the article, has been really skilled and professional) and he should flaunt it more. Similarly, a really strong statement of purpose in the Middle East might help Romney recover. The way he described foreign policy during the RNC does basically nothing to distinguish him from Bush for me. As

This article originally appealed to me because of my huge interest in Hillary Clinton; but as much as I love her, the idea that the Democratic National Convention was so defined by her absence and the possibility of her running in 2016 was worrisome. The constant desperation to be aware of what will happen in the future of politics is certainly understandable, but always in thinking in terms of the next step can take away from the urgency of a current issue, like the difficulties Obama faces as he campaigns for another four years. While rumors about whether Hillary will run or not are generally not too wrapped up in the political party of the next president, whether it be Obama or Romney, the hope to get a Democrat in there as much as possible can cloud the issues that should be taking precedence. This might just be the nature of having such short terms and the seemingly unsolvable partisanship, but I like how this article also mentions how discussion of Hillary can serve the Democrats well as just another way to steer clear of attacks on Obama's economy and make it more difficult for the Republicans to frame the focus of their campaign on "only Obama." This article had a link to another one about Hillary and the convention (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/world/asia/not-by-design-another-clinton-watches-charlotte-from-afar.html) which I really enjoyed. It's also pretty short, but talks about "foreign policy [remaining] 'nonpartisan,'" and how despite a Republican claim that Romney could handle foreign policy better than Obama, the United States' relationship with other countries remains rather non-political, which means Hillary might actually be " done with politics" (a tangent I might be the only one interested in).

Two things interested me in this article: the description of Hilary as the comeback kid and the quote "a setback is merely a prelude to redemption," reminded me how extraordinary her path through politics has been. This was written before the tragedy in Libya. Seeing her with President Obama at the memorial service instead of the DNC added to her important position outside the political game. She has established herself as not only a strong woman, but a thoughtful, nuanced leader. I'd like to see her run for office. Quickly, the other part of the article that was interesting was the number of centrist democrats who stayed away from the convention because they were running tight races in states like Nebraska and Missouri. This seemed to reinforce the notation that the conventions are targeted for the base. Convincing more moderate voters comes later.

This is interesting, especially considering the implications for Hillary 2016 of the recent incidents in the middle east. Obama has been largely uncriticized for the (what I believe to be) serious failures to respond to threats and protect embassies sufficiently, probably due to the number of Romney gaffes in the last couple weeks, but as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton could be held partially accountable for the gaps in security and poor management of the situation. I don't think we know enough about the circumstances of the attacks yet, but it's interesting to think about.

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.

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 of how badly Romney attacks the Obama campaign. Romney takes a shot at the president by saying, "If you felt that excitement when you voted for Barack Obama, shouldn't you feel that way now that he's President Obama?" I enjoyed the article because it shows that Romney has a plan that he thinks will genuinely work, but I dislike like fact he was not giving the Obama administration credit for anything positive. Romney briefly gives Obama credit for giving Seal Team 6 the order to take out Bin Laden, but then blames him for making every American less safe because of his failure to secure Iran's nuclear threat.

I enjoyed reading this article because it shows that Romney is doing something I have wanted him to do for a long time, which is humanize himself. This election is going to be won by speeches and connection with voters. President Obama is, by far, one of the best speakers I have ever heard and that is why he gets a lot of his votes. While I am slightly upset that Romney attacked Obama in such a harsh manner, I don't get the sense that that was it's main purpose. The way I see that speech is that it was an attempt to reason with and connect to voters in a way Romney has not done before. I posted before about the importance of connection and I still believe that it is charisma and connections that will provide an edge in this election and I am happy to see Romney is starting to realize that.

Cameron, I really don't see Romney winning on his ability to connect on a human level with the electorate. Obama will beat Romney on likability right up until election day and that will not change. I don't think that Romney going down the route of telling his life story help him that much either. Much of what was said about him was an attempt to make it look like he is a normal, which he frankly is not; he won't even release his tax statements. Romney will win on coming across as someone that is ready to take on the economic problems not on who is more likable.

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.

Both campaigns and much of the news coverage has focused on how the two candidates must convince the small group of undecided voters to vote for them. This article analyzes how Obama's convention acceptance speech sought to appeal to the more centrist voter. It was interesting to read that Romney's target voter was, "a married, middle-class, middle-aged woman who had voted for Obama in '08. These kinds of simplistic characterizations like "hockey-mom" seem to help campaigns focus their messages. But do they oversimplify what these voters want to know? The Ecomomist writer clearly dislikes what he sees as Obama's "leftish pandering" about globalization", but found some of the speech convincing, specifically his attempt to present the role of government in a more nuanced way. It's not "either/or". This makes me wonder whether the debates will give a platform for each candidate to be more specific about their vision for the role of government. When I've heard undecided voters interviewed, they all seem to be very interested in specifics and tired of the simplistic partisan fighting.

I agree about a space for debating the role of government in not strictly Democrat or Republican terms. In the long run, I think this would help both candidates. For Obama, I see this helping him take back the disillusioned first-term voters that you mention. If he can present a position on the role of government that's "nuanced" (either backing up his policy these last for years or differing from it), he could be able to paint the next four as brighter. For Romney, this specificity about the role of government could be huge. If he distinguishes himself from Bush's, as Cody's articles suggests, he can avoid appearing as a generic Republican and create a more center argument than wishing that the government would "get out of our lives." I think this could make up the minds of the undecided voters you mention, and would be a relief from the debate that's going on.

I was looking on the WSJ and I found this general article about how President Obama is leading in most of the swing states. I think this is interesting because it reminded me of a thought that I have had for a while which is that perhaps one of the reasons that Romney isn't as popular as Obama is that he can't connect as well. When I hear Obama speak, while I might not agree with his views, I feel drawn to his charisma. On the other hand, Romney appears stiff and uptight. While this article does not address that point directly, I think that it shows some of the repercussions that a lack of connection can have.

I agree: stiff is definitely a good word for his presence on stage. The point you brought up speaks a lot what I look at as a competition between the candidate in terms of relatability. With jobs being arguably the most central issue of each campaign, and "middle class" being the buzzword, I've noticed both Obama and Romney striving to fit this image. While Romney's income puts him as far from working class as it gets, I think that the difficultly we have relating to him has much more to do with his stiff and uptight presence, like you said. Similarly, I think the way people relate with Obama has much more to do with the charisma you mentioned than his actual relationship to the middle class.

This article stood out to me since it discusses a topic that I often find myself drawn to, which is the appropriateness of identity politics and how they affect not only Democrats, but politics more broadly. While this is a rather brief overview of a large issue, it efficiently mentions where the legacy of identity politics has its roots and how the Democratic focus on minorities has been successful in creating policies that strive for more equality. The article then goes on to discuss how identity politics can alienate key voters who are supporters of the party, but find themselves "excluded from" the focus on topics and issues they, as generally white and older citizens, cannot relate to. Though identity politics began as a way to bring in a more diverse audience of supporters and voters who were often left marginalized by other parties and politicians, the Democrats can easily make their campaigns and policies too specific and exclusive, leaving those not affected by more common forms of prejudice forgotten. I like that this article finishes with the idea that shifting the Democratic focus from tailored appeals to minorities to broader campaigns about unity would avoid the problem Democrats face, but I find it hard to imagine Democrats giving up a type of campaigning that their Republican rivals really struggle with when it gives them such an advantage, even with the alleged cost of forgotten white voters.

While I was reading this article, something about it didn't resonate with me. This is the line that really threw me off, "But if I'm a plain old white insurance salesman, I look at the Democratic Party and say, What's in it for me?" Well, for this salesman what's in it for him is a more fair tax code, a medicare system that will guarantee him health care longer into his life, the list goes on. I don't see how "identity politics" are hurting the Democratic Party, because there are so many issues in politics. I really don't believe the equal rights stance of the Democratic Party would alienate middle-class white men, because the Republican Party's economic policy will hurt these middle class men more. Now, all of my views on this issue are completely biased by my liberal politics, but I just disagreed with what this article was trying to get at.

Interesting article and a great discussion. Identity does impact political leanings, and middle class white men more often vote Republican. I agree that it seems like the Democrats would have a lot to offer the "plain old white insurance salesman," but working class white guys don't seem to see it that way. If only women voted in this country, Republicans would not have a chance. Indeed, you can say the same about Latinos, Jews, African-Americans, immigrants, the poor ... And Republicans have their base groups as well -- white men, evangelical Christians, rural voters and those in the ex-urbs, etc. It turns out that how you vote is enormously impacted by citizenship status, race, ethnicity, class, gender, etc.

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.

I was really interested by the section of the Conrad reading that dealt with campaign funding. This article details Karl Rove, one of the biggest names in political finance who has masterminded the Republican switch from "hard" (personal donations) to "soft" ("social welfare") funding. Many think of him as the man who kept Bush Jr. afloat for two terms, and now Romney has him in charge of funneling donations from massively wealthy, anonymous Republicans into a "social welfare organization" (to be spent on anti-Obama ads). Groups likes these on either side are part of what Rove refers to as the "unlimited-outside-money boom." While Republicans are not the only guilty party, I find it really disturbing that groups like American Crossroads and Crossroads GPS can be legally separate from the Romney campaign itself. This loophole encourages aggressive ads and a totally out-of-control budget - more than a billion dollars - during the campaigning. The advertising machine developed by the Romney campaign has twice the budget of Obama's: if he can't keep up, how could any less mainstream candidate even hope to? This article makes a really strong case for limiting spending. Rove makes a point about keeping the parties themselves stronger, but it was not enough to sell the idea to me. The grimmest part is the story of one-upping Rove gives: he created Crossroads as a response to Obama's doubling of the Republican budget in the last race, pointing out that this cycle could continue.

I found this really interesting, especially being in the campaign finance small group for the presentation. The article does a good job describing the confusing nuances of 501s and 527s (superpacs and social welfare groups), but what I found the most interesting was the discussion of Obama's vilification of the Citizens United decision. The decision definitely hurt the Democratic party and gave the Republicans an advantage in the world of campaign finance, and this article seems to accuse Obama of deliberately misrepresenting the decision to make it seem worse than it was.

The part that stuck out to me in this article was when Rove tried to act as if unions and corporations should have the same rights. Unions represent large groups of people working for companies (i.e. the United Auto Workers). The people in these unions are generally blue-collar, working class people. Corporations on the other hand are all about making money. To me, it seems much more fair for unions to be able to run politically driven ads than corporations, but I'm not sure how that would work legally.

This NYTimes article uses data gathered by the Pew Research Center, and the Rothenberg Political report to chart the different factions of the Democratic Party according to their relative influence, motivating issues and standard bearers. It exposes important unifying issues like equity (fairness) and uncovers differences on other matters like immigration and the size of the federal government. It will be interesting to look at the motivating issues of each group and compare them to the issues Obama focuses on in his speeches and which he stays away from. According to this article, the southern democrats, formerly a large powerful group, are shrinking. Is that because they donít agree with other Democratís position on social issues like gay marriage and positions on immigration and the environment that they are concerned affect employment? Itís also interesting to imagine how this information is gathered and how accurate it is.

It's weird how many of the groups in this are classified as "social conservatives." I feel like living in San Francisco there are a lot of people who support Obama purely because of his positions on abortion and gay marriage. I see a lot of people to whom it seems social issues are pretty much all they think about politically, so its interesting for me to think about people who vote against their personally held social ideology to support their economic interests. Gives some perspective.

The "standard bearers" section of this article really stood out to me. Almost all of those politicians described as "standard bearers" spoke at the convention. Because all of these different prominent politicians in different groups all spoke at the Democratic convention, I believe it shows a united party. If there was a similar analysis of the Republican party, I don't think all of their "standard bearers" would be featured in the convention. For example, the Republican party worked hard to keep folks like Ron Paul off the center stage at the convention, even though he has plenty of supper within the Republican party.

I chose this article, from The Economist. It's long, and pretty boring, but I think it addresses the issue of Obama's economic record from an (as far as I can tell) objective standpoint. Obama and Romney are making conflicting claims about the state of the American economy under Obama, both of them citing statistics, and, unsure of who to believe, I went in search of an article like this.      The article neither adulates nor lambastes Obama, which I think adds to its credibility. Interestingly, it seems to support Mitt Romney's characterization of Obama as a starry-eyed idealist, saying "Mr. Obama's personal priorities carried the day... Mr. Obama has always portrayed himself as a pragmatist, not an ideologue. In practice, though, he usually chooses bigger government over small."      The articles casts Obama as having arrived to the Oval office with unrealistic goals, but still having made progress despite not living up to those goals. These unrealized goals, though, can still be used against him by the Republicans to win disillusioned Obama voters over to the right.

The point Cody brought up about unrealized goals, but goals with progress, is one that I see being key to the arguments both sides are making. It's a good summary of what's at the heart of Obama's hope to "finish the job" and Romney's sad portrait of the last four years. I think the article really gets at the tough place he is in: are we supposed to criticize or praise Obama for doing basically everything a president should do, but not delivering what he promised? The way it talks about the mini-recession that occurred just because of the transition sort of sells me the claim that a lot of went wrong can't be pinned on him. Granted I don't know that much about economics, the decisions he made for sections of a tanking economy (stimulus, etc.) seemed level-headed, and seemed like they came from a pool of options limited to a "Democrat" choice and a "Republican" choice. Also, debt vs. deficit?

I thought it was interesting to read the description of Obama's unique position as a president influencing the US economy. Comparing him to FDR's response to the Depression shed new light on the difficulty of Obama's position and the complexity of his response. Being reminded that the months between FDR's victory and his inauguration were the worst months of the Depression put perspective on Obama's need to both quickly gain credibility and take some serious risks. It was interesting to read that The Economist felt that his stress tests were more effective because they were tougher and more transparent that those set up in Europe. In fact, the only clear criticism they make is that he didn't take the risk to spend a lot of money on the mortgage crisis. I would have thought a more conservative magazine, like The Economist, would think the government should have spent less. It is interesting to think that with all these complicated decisions, Obama's biggest mistake may have been that he promised too much. I think that might be right. Listening to him now, he seems to understand that. His speeches are less inspirational, but in may ways more realistic.