Skip to main content

Home/ Groups/ Dole Group
Anna Schutte

A New Guide to the Democratic Herd - 7 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I was struck by the part about Southern Democrats too, because their role as a unit in the party is one I've rarely heard mentioned. This is cool to look at, especially in a class of mostly democrats/liberals, because it outlines important sections of the party that (I'm assuming) most Urban students don't fall into. I think its important to see what groups and specific interests the Obama campaign has to promote (or at least be sensitive to) that fall outside of the "Staunch Liberal" bubble. This sub-party, which defines the issues I immediately think of when I read "democrat," is not only just one side of a big set of interests, but also not that critical to the outcome of the election.
  •  
    The parade of different donkeys efficiently demonstrated the core Democratic voters, ones I am more familiar with, and the offshoots of the party, like the Southern Democrats, who hold an interesting position in that their values only partly line up with Obama's and they are therefore hard to pin down. I thought the connection the video made between the historical impact of the Democrat party and the voters today was great and the size of the animated characters was an easy way to understand the breadth of a group. I also enjoyed that the identifiers for all the different voters, represented through stereotypical markings, like glasses and protest signs, actually did show the diversity of the party. While some voters may slowly be falling out of the Democratic range, the variety of Obama supporters is interesting when thinking about all of the different issues that matter to the voters themselves. It always amazes me that the Obama campaign seems to manage all of the sensitivities and passions of their mass of voters; though that balance definitely seems precarious, when it does work, it's very impressive.
  •  
    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.
Eli Melrod

We Need a 'Conservative' Party - 6 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I really liked this piece. The terrifying part to me (the author points this out really well) isn't just how little gets done, but how little gets talked about. The list of three other massive issues - more demanding and globalized jobs, energy crisis, and immigration - can hardly be brought up with the radicalization of the parties you mentioned. The reason this election is "about" jobs and the economy is that it is the only issue the parties can agree to disagree about constructively. Any one of the others, I think, would become about ideology and not about reaching a sensible compromise.
  •  
    This article, to me, really does address the main obstacle to becoming a united nation, which is radicals on either side of the political spectrum, but particularly conservatives. As a conservative myself, I find that often times I am frustrated by how stubborn or radical the leaders of the Republicans can be and this article makes an excellent point as to how that is affecting our nation. What our leaders need to understand is that they are never going to fully get their way, but instead they need to learn to compromise. Otherwise, nothing will get done. I agree with John that all of the other important issues need to be addressed, but they can't because of the radical ideals of a few powerful people.
  •  
    This editorial, along with John's article, show how important it is for the Republicans to become less radical. John's article shows that Karl Rove is actually already trying to do this by supporting more traditionally, conservative politicians and publicly taking more moderate stances. However, Romney and most of the Republican ads continue to cater to the radical right and their "no new taxes" and anti government positions. I wonder what would happen if Romney actually took the more moderate positions of Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush. Would he lose the Republican base? I also found Murdoch's observation about immigrants being "natural Republicans" very interesting. Is this because they he imagines they have more conservative social opinions?
  •  
    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.
John West

Obama Can Say 'Climate' After All | The Nation - 5 views

  • “yes, my plan will continue to reduce the carbon pollution that is heating our planet, because climate change is not a hoax. More droughts and floods and wildfires are not a joke. They are a threat to our children’s future.”
  • Even George W. Bush, for all his resistance to tackling climate change, never made fun of it.
  • president’s own statements, before last night, have not been terribly reassuring either, if only because there have been so few of them.
  • ...6 more annotations...
  • Obama appears not to have brought up “climate change” publicly a single time in 2012.
  • promised to “be very clear in voicing my belief that we’re going to have to take further steps to deal with climate change in a serious way.”
  • Even as his own government’s scientists were affirming climate change’s connection to the extreme weather events of 2012, the president declined to use his bully pulpit to make the connection clear to the public, much less attempt to rally Americans to action.
  • assumed that talking about climate change turns voters off: it’s too dark, too controversial, too complicated
  • “Three out of four Americans now acknowledge climate disruption is real, and more than two out of three believe we should be doing something about it,
  • In 2008, it looked as though Barack Obama would be the hero to lead such a quest. Now, his speech in Charlotte has raised hopes among some environmentalists that Obama, after an extended absence, may be ready to rejoin the battle
  •  
    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
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    Climate change is just one of many issues that Obama must discuss in a specific way as to not seem too revolutionary nor liberal (I like how this article mentions that "Democratic politicians have shunned the "L word": liberal"). Every mention has to be well-tailored and as non-controversial as possible as to not offend a sensitive audience, which reminds me of how Obama addresses his views on social issues in front of more conservative audiences, where he either evades the topic at hand, whether it be about abortion or marriage equality, or presents his opinion in a simple and placid way. When discussing climate change, Obama employs a similar attitude, which I personally find maddening, especially since the article mentions that "the public... finally see for themselves... the reality of climate change" and that even if Obama took a more powerful stance on the issue, it would doubtfully make a big impact on his supporters, most of whom are already agree with Obama's alleged opinions. Beyond the very toned-down attitude Obama brings, it's also interesting what he chooses to note when mentioning climate change. Instead of honing in on details, he talks about events of the past few years that vaguely reference major problems and then focuses in on the aspects that could appeal to a broad range of voters, like when he talks about the "threat[s] to our children's future." This also serves to combat Romney's rather ridiculous claim that by focusing on the climate, it is impossible to also care about the American people themselves.
  •  
    I think that Obama has been smart to stay mostly silent on climate change. Yes, it's a big issue, but had he made it a major cause of his campaign he would have been even more vulnerable to depiction by Romney as a head-in-the-clouds kind of guy. During an economic crisis, the voters want the president to be focusing on immediate steps for the good of the American middle class - more jobs, lower taxes, cheaper healthcare. Climate change can and obviously does evoke strong emotion in certain voting blocs, but for the majority of middle-class Americans who are still reeling from the recession, they want their president to be focused on their immediate recovery. I think Obama only brought it up here as a direct response to Romney's challenge - to not address it would make him seem weak in his stance. I also think it's worth noting that in this brief mention, he ties it to the immediate future, to help ward off that daydreamer image that Romney evoked.
  •  
    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.
mabel taylor

One for All and All for One - 5 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...3 more comments...
  •  
    I think the efforts by both Obama and Romney to focus on minorities and identity groups is as much about tapping into wider voting groups as it is about creating equal policy (Jeb's comment about widening the appeal). I agree with you, though, that the Obama approach to identity politics is probably here to stay and worth the sacrifices he has to make in terms of old white voters. This is one of the ways, at least it seems to me, that "conventional" Democrats are not going to be all that important in deciding the election this year. This article reminds me of that infographic Anna posted: not only are some of the concerns of these smaller sections of the party outside of the bubble of typical Democrat issues, some of them actually contradict these views.
  •  
    According to Joe Klein, Obama and the democratic party have focused so much in supporting the minority groups that they have ignored the needs of white middle class voters. It's interesting to think about how this actually excludes a huge portion of the country. I wonder specifically which white voters Klein is referring to. Watching the crowd at the Democratic Convention I was struck by the diversity of the group. It seemed to reflect the US much more than the white crowd at the Republican Convention. There seemed to be many white, democratic delegates. Were these delegates from coastal states? Were they from cities? Did the majority of them connect to groups like women's rights, LGBT rights and other identity groups? I am concerned that the democrat's position on social issues could upset middle class voters who share other values with the democrats. However, I cannot imagine supporting issues of social justice and not highlighting them. They are just too important.
  •  
    This article brings up an interesting division in the Democratic party between white, middle class voters and the various minority groups. It's odd to think that a white construction worker in Texas or California, though he would probably agree with the Democratic party's stance on unions and worker rights, minimum wages, universal health care, etc, would probably be alienated by the party's stance on immigration. Ultimately, though, I feel like the democrats are right to court minority voters - every day, more old white men die and more minority voters become voting age. That is the direction that the country is heading, and I'm sure that if the Dems are consciously choosing minority voters over a more traditional voter base they're doing so with good reason.
  •  
    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.
Eli Melrod

The Elephant in the Room - 5 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I think learning from Bush-era policies, like you said, is the best way to figure out what to do (or not do). When we talked in class about how complicated and unrelatable fiscal policy is, I kept wondering what ideology *actually* works and how we can be certain. Looking back on past failures seems like the only way to relly know. If we implement the policies you're talking about, which arguably led to the recession, why should we expect something different? I don't know that much about economics, but I agree with you. If Bush's fiscal policy is what really did set the stage for the economy to tank, I can't discern big enough differences in Romney's platform - "generic conservative rhetoric" - to expect something better. If anything, the article describes Romney's plan as a watered-down version of Bush's, which raises different concerns for me.
  •  
    It is always interesting to hear about Republican positions like the idea that Romney is not doing well because "left controlled education shaped the Millennials." There is probably something to this. Also, I agree with Eli as far as the specifics that Romney and Ryan have offered so far. They sound just like George W. Bush and it is pretty clear that politically he needs to separate himself from Bush. I just read and posted an article on the effect of tax cuts on economic growth. It is pretty clear that historically tax cuts have not done much to improve growth. However, this article says that the Republicans acknowledge the failings of the Bush plan and promise more responsibility. Maybe they do know they need to offer more and will hear about tax reform and other things in the debates. It is pretty clear from Romney's behavior this week that he is not taking a more nuanced position on foreign policy.
  •  
    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.
mabel taylor

Haunted by Hillary - 4 views

  •  
    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).
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    What you're saying reminds me of an article posted here earlier (I forget which one specifically) that describes a sort of grand plan for the Democrats: get Obama in a second term, further radicalize the Republican party, and in turn guarantee victory for Hilary in 2016. If Obama is kind of on board with this idea, I don't know how negative her role (or absence) this year will actually be. Reading the article, though, it all seems a little premature to me. I like the point you're bringing up about her being useful in other ways: it seems like she helps the party more when she is doing her own thing. The other article you posted highlights this idea. To me, her steering clear of the DNC seems really professional and a good example of where to draw the line on partisanship. Maybe the author is mainly focused on the DNC, but I wonder if there is a Republican equivalent right now.
  •  
    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.
mabel taylor

Romney: Redistribution does not get people back to work - 4 views

  •  
    I think this video is interesting because it demonstrates not only Romney's hope that he can move past the negative press that the video Mother Jones released brought to his campaign, but also how he will try to pose the statements in a way that will benefit his campaign. Trying to avoid talking about the comments would make him seem weak and I can understand why Romney would want to face them head on so as to prevent even more anger (I don't think he has actually been that successful in doing this). Romney discusses his comments as opinions he has always held and while he originally states that he was referring mostly to the campaign and voters, at the end of the video he mentions that he carries this opinion "day in and day out" and it is "the course of America" that he is concerned with. Discussing the negative comments only in the light of the race would seem like a smarter idea, so I wonder why Romney would even end with this comment? Another perplexing part of this video is how Romney starts off by saying he knows there are some voters he simply will not get, about half of the nation, but then goes on to say that he will do whatever he can to get as many votes as possible. Obviously I understand the desire to collect as many votes as he can, but he is more aware than anyone that there are some Americans who simply will not vote for him, especially after the comments he made about the country's dependents. Though this is a pretty clear dichotomy, it is interesting to see how Romney so blatantly speaks of it and how the faulty logic comes right out of the governor struggling to get his opinion across during the interview. This reactionary type of response is also seen when interviewer tries to steer Romney towards a specific issue and Romney bounces back to classic conservative rhetoric.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I disagree that touching on the comments would prevent even more anger and lashing out: I believe that the best damage control for his campaign right now would be to distance himself from the comments entirely. I think your point about his final comments, in which he basically reaffirms the extremely controversial message of the leaked video, is spot-on: this is exactly the opposite of what he should be doing to pick up the pieces after the scandal. Trying to reframe the comments at all, whether in positive or negative light, seems like a losing plan to me. I think that many of the people who his video offended are going to do very little follow-up on it, and the publicity that an incident like this generates is going to be difficult, maybe impossible, for him to recreate in a positive light. The video made news in a way and on a scale that none of his responses will, so his best bet would seem to be moving on from it. The contradiction you bring up in your second paragraph is the exact reason he should create distance from the video: in my mind, the comments he made are impossible to reconcile with his official policy and any kind of sensible public relations.
  •  
    Interesting to see how Romney responded to the Mother Jones video with a calm smile and just turning each question into a part of stump speech stuff. He is taking the position that his plan is "compassionate" because it is "free people" and "free enterprise" who will help the increasing number of people "falling into poverty." Not very compelling, but hard to imagine what else he could do. Apologizing would be great, but he would then alienate his supporters who agree with the 42%.
  •  
    Yeah, I think the 47% comment really sealed the deal on Obama winning the election. The Republican's attempt to humanize Mitt Romney at the convention was destroyed by the release of this video. The comments are clearly offensive, and like John said, there is no way that Romney can look good when talking about these comments. It completely fulfills the stereotype that lots of Americans have about Mitt Romney being out of touch and disingenuous when he talks about helping the middle class.
  •  
    Yeah he's definitely scrambling to recover from that comment. I don't have much to say, but check out this ad from the Obama campaign: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B9xCCaseop4. Pretty harsh. Romney's had a bad couple weeks.
Anna Schutte

What I Learned From Playing the Gipper - 4 views

  •  
    This editorial written by Michael Sovern, the former president of Columbia and Mondale's "Reagan"during his preparation for the presidential debates, reveals some interesting things to look for in the presidential debates. Though both Mondale and Reagan used public funding for their campaigns and "were spared the money raising frenzy", Sovern predicts that there will probably be similarities: Candidates challenging the incumbent has an advantage by merely sharing the stage with the President of the United States on equal terms and giving a good performance. He also says that the person answering the 1st question second begins on better footing because they have time to think and settle in. According to Sovern, besides appearing presidential, they each must get their message across even if the question doesn't ask for it AND avoid seeming to dodge the question. They will probably quickly answer part of the question and then follow with their message. It will be interesting to watch for these techniques in the debates tomorrow.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I enjoyed this article and it voiced some ideas that usually come up with Presidential debates. Hearing them explicitly, like the really interesting opinion that the candidate challenging the incumbent usually does better, was interesting, especially after the first debate. It's amazing how many of these predictions actually came true.
  •  
    It definitely makes sense to me that the incumbent is at a disadvantage. The point that you brought up, Anna, about the candidate who goes second having the easiest time is definitely something we saw last week. A lot of the time, it seemed like the second speaker wasn't even answering the same question. It was also funny to me how understated the last part of the author's piece was: Mondale didn't lose in 1984, he got completely demolished (he lost in 49 out of 50 state). For an author who supports a second term for Obama, this seems like a really promising point to make. Even if Obama doesn't have a comeback in the next two, it has no real bearing on November.
  •  
    This is an interesting article. I like its analysis of the strategy of debates, and its assertion that the incumbent is at a disadvantage is, like Mabel said, interesting to hear explicitly stated. It's interesting because I feel like the incumbent has an advantage in the election as a whole, but I guess the debates provide such a good platform for aggressive criticism that the challenger usually comes out on top.
  •  
    I really enjoyed this article, one because it was short and sweet, but also because I agree with what is being said. I just started my school's first Public Forum Debate team this year and my partner, Frankie DeBorde, and I know exactly what this article is talking about in terms of debate strategy. Since the debate has happened, I think that Romney won based on the criteria that the author offered up, which I agree with. I think that Romney was able to win in an area that Obama usually has done well in by appearing more in control and taking advantage of Obama's mistake. For once Romney just didn't make a mistake which worked out well.
Cameron G

The Rich versus Everybody Else in Obama's America - 4 views

  •  
    While I think the ideology behind this article would be hard to debate productively on a forum like Diigo, a conversation about the portrayal of each candidate as a champion of "class warfare" might be a little more fruitful. Class is definitely an issue that any comment, by Romney or by Obama, could incite claims like these. The issue I have with this article is the wordplay it involves: while taking minor quotes from Obama (or just referencing what he's saying) makes him sound like this class-warfare champion, I would be interested to see this author write the same article about Romney. For every spending figure the author cites, I believe a similar one could be drummed up to paint Romney as a villain. The wildly controversial video of Romney, in which he basically divides the country into two halves, those who are dependent and those who are not, strikes me as the very definition of class warfare. If the author wants Obama held accountable for his words, the same can be done with Romney (I don't think it's a coincidence that this article was published shortly after the video leaked). I generally have a problem with using ideology to paint one candidate as hero and another as villain: I would rather take on faith that each candidate truly and honestly thinks his plan will work, and find which one I agree with. The idea that, next month, we will permanently decide the "vision of America" seems like a distraction to me.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    This article is full of generalizations that are not true. First off, Chris Christie is not some hero that created jobs (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/10/christie-talks-of-a-comeback-but-jobs-data-may-say-otherwise/?ref=christopherjchristie). New Jersey has the fourth highest unemployment rate of any state in the country. His entire "New Jersey Comeback" is essentially not true. A plethora of top scholars have pointed out that New Jersey is in fact not doing that well. In that vain, it is quite telling that Christie didn't once mention the "New Jersey Comeback" in his speech at the convention, because it is frankly just rhetoric. Second off, the claims that this author makes about Democrats are pure generalization based upon ideological rhetoric that doesn't provide for a fruitful debate at all. This statement: "Single women, a major Democrat voting bloc, like the anti-rich message for several reasons. They are more likely to be poor and use government aid. Idealistic young women enjoy feeling kind -- how enjoyable it is to feel virtuous by being generous with other people's money" is offensive. There is no statistical analysis, just a generalization about women. Also, where is this anti-rich message? Not once did the author of the article provide any basis for his idea that Democrats are anti-rich. In fact, Democrats have time and time again clarified that they are not anti-rich; they just want policies that will allow all the chance to succeed and eventually become rich. Another absurd claim the author makes is, "Our minorities who receive preferential treatment in jobs and education are happy to think the system is still unfair fifty years after the Civil Rights movement, and that they deserve more privileges and more money." The system is still unfair! There are m
  •  
    Eli, I understand your concern with details of this article, but the point I was more concerned with is the representation of the upper class in modern America. I tried to get an article I read in Fortune, but it was not online, so this was the best I could do. I do think that the rich are often portrayed as the villains. Why should people be concerned with "spreading the wealth" and not with learning how to get more themselves. It is true that less well off individuals tend to favor the Democrat candidate. I just think that everybody needs to stop accusing the rich and learn from them.
  •  
    I agree with a lot of what John and Eli said, not only because of the inaccuracy of the comments made in this article but also as a liberal "idealistic young [woman]," I didn't know before that I only like Obama because of some misguided desire to be nice to people! Otherwise, Cameron, I think that you are delegitimizing this article further by pointing out that the details are irrelevant. The details are only irrelevant because they are so broad-sweeping and false that they end up outlandish and almost humorous. In actuality, they represent the ignorance that defines this article and the lack of respect for real people in the United States who might not be as privileged as the upper class Americans you also referenced. This is something that I often see as flawed in Republican values, very few poor people have the resources to simply "learn" from the rich and completely pull themselves out of their situations which are exasperated by entire social systems inherently working against them.
John West

Karl Rove: He's Back, Big Time - Businessweek - 4 views

  • Wynn’s preference for anonymity in such transactions posed no obstacle. That’s the whole idea behind Crossroads GPS.
  • unlimited, undisclosed contributions from industrialists, financiers, and other loaded insiders
  • To maintain its supporters’ anonymity, a social welfare group like GPS must not have a “primary purpose” of a political nature, and it cannot coordinate strategy with candidates.
  • ...7 more annotations...
  • unlimited-outside-money boom
  • the Crossroads-led offensive is collectively poised to spend more than $1 billion on the 2012 elections, according to Republican operatives. That’s roughly twice—repeat: twice—what Democrats expect to spend by means of their super PACs and social welfare groups.
  • The Democrat turned down public money, revealed himself to be a fundraising dervish, and outspent his opponent by nearly two-to-one.
  • some on the right “decided to create an enduring entity as a counterbalance.” Those entities are the Crossroads groups.
  • Rove pitched his proposed startup as a more professional alternative, one built to have impact in 2010 but endure long beyond. “The business model of a consultant-driven, vendor-directed entity that hired itself increasingly lacked credibility with donors and was unsustainable,” Rove explains.
  • “Conservative activists tend to act like six-year-olds on soccer teams,” he explains, “with everyone grouping around the ball and getting in each other’s way. Karl’s idea was that all of these organizations should share information, coordinate polling, reduce redundancy.”
  • many of those who are squealing the loudest now [about Crossroads] are the same people who were mute when groups on the left were pioneering the use of 527s and 501(c)(4)s. … Liberals cheered then but are now quick to try and stop conservatives from using the techniques they used in the past.
  •  
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    One of the ideas that stuck with me the most after reading this article about an issue that is certainly controversial, but somewhat unavoidable, was the quote you also brought up, which is that Karl Rove is invested in "[solidifying] Republican control in Washington, not subvert[ing] the party system." This paradox is really fascinating and seems masked by subtlety. By strengthening and giving great power to the Republican party, both in Congress and through the President, I would assume that the party system would be thoroughly changed. Even though a Democrat could run for the next term, if Rove is right in saying that this new way of campaign financing and organizing is cyclical, it seems like "Republican control in Washington" could turn into a more lasting situation. But because this article addressed the growing Democratic campaign financing world, which I have always struggled to learn more about, it is difficult to say if the growth of Republican resources would really change anything. If Democrats soon catch up in terms of their financial abilities and "receive unlimited, undisclosed contributions from industrialists, financiers, and other loaded insiders," then wouldn't it just elevate the scale of presidential campaigning, and the classic dynamics of the race would remain the same?
  •  
    This article's description of Karl Rove's 501c4, which is supposed to be a non-profit, social welfare agency sharing offices with his 527 super-pac is very disturbing. It seems that it should be breaking some law that they share executives, employees, consultants, etc. The definition of "social welfare" in politics is a very slippery idea. So much has been made of the Supreme Court's Citizen's United decision's effect on the Repulblican's ability to raise huge amounts of money, I had no idea that the Democrats had been doing the same thing for a long time. The article refers to a book by Brendan Doherty, The Rise of the President's Permanent Campaign. The title itself exposes a sad truth about our political system. It never seems to end. It is wrong that all this money floods into "social welfare" agencies to research and pay for endless political ads when there is so much real work to be done to help real people. I can't help but wonder whether we can consider a system like France where politicians can only campaign for a short period of time or whether we should have a law that a president can only serve one six year term. He can then work on his agenda instead of always thinking about the next election.
  •  
    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.
Eli Melrod

Week 6: Why Obamacare is a Conservative\'s Dream - 7 views

  •  
    This article is a great explanation for the article that Miles posted last week, "Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama." Obamacare is the epitome of a centralist solution to healthcare, but the Republicans in the house are too caught up in politics to admit that it is actually a good compromise. It is interesting looking at Romney's own plan for Massachusetts in comparison to Obamacare, because they are essentially the same plan. Because Romney has taken up the issue of "repealing Obamacare," he has really dug himself a hole, because what is the conservative alternative? No healthcare plan? It seems to me that this kind of partisan politics is the reason that Romney is doing so poorly in the election.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    This article does a good job of explaining the conservative nature of Obamacare by mentioning how the plan brings forth "principles originally embraced by Republicans" and showing that "because it is not a government takeover of health care," it has few large Democrat supporters. This sentence sums it up well and demonstrates the ridiculousness of the situation: "Mr. Obama's plan, which should be a darling of the right for these principles, was abandoned not for its content, but rather for politics." I am also wondering where that leaves the Republicans, since if Romney is anti-"Romneycare across state lines," what would his health care plan be? Furthermore, instead of attacking Obamacare, he could be giving himself the credit for the basic idea which would certainly help his campaign, gain wider-spread support, and make him appear more the right-leaning centrist.
  •  
    As someone who doesn't understand the details of Obamacare, this was really compelling. I remember someone in the chat room on debate night mentioning that the Mass. plan is basically identical to Obama's, like you said, Eli, so it's more confusing to me that Romney keeps objecting to it as a whole than that he agrees to it in part. Also, Eli, just as there is not really clear Republican alternative to Obamacare, I wonder what the Democrats who are "lukewarm" about it would rather see? I agree with what you're saying in your last sentence, Mabel. It seems like he's already headed in that direction, but should probably hurry it up if he wants it to pay off with the moderate electorate. Even if he can't claim Obama's plan, he could definitely latch onto "personal responsibility" and other traditionally conservative values behind it as more reflective of his own platform.
  •  
    This article is the best. It provides such a clear, concise explanation of Obamacare. And it really does, if you know this, invalidate Romney's entire platform. Obamacare is a centrist healthcare plan, and it's just like Romneycare. Romney is running on a platform of "anti-Obama," and all he's saying that he'll do is remove and replace Obama's policies -- but with what? Romney isn't saying. It really is astounding how much vitriol there is in America directed towards Obama, who is largely a centrist in his policies.
  •  
    This article, like the Obamanomics, shows how too often politics takes precedent over policy. It's very disturbing that when something is as critical as health insurance for as many people as possible, is lost in a political battle. It sounds like even though the Democrats and Republicans agree on the most important aspects of Obamacare, it became mired in its present battle because the White House "rammed the bill through Congress." And the Republicans "lashed back with a vengeance." These political battles seem so petty when so much is at stake and everybody basically agrees on policy.
John West

Week 6: Obama and Romney on '60 Minutes': What were the defining moments? - CSMonitor.com - 3 views

  •  
    I have been hearing a lot about the "60 Minutes" appearances by both candidates on Sunday night. This article picks apart the key points that both candidates made in what the author describes as the "pre-debate." While Obama and Romney were interviewed separately, the juxtaposition of their interview was a clear struggle for undecided voters. The author highlights a controversial handling of foreign policy questions by Obama, as well as a pretty spectacular gaffe by Romney, in which he suggests that emergency room care is an effective way to take care of the 50 million uninsured Americans. From what the author says, the interviews were a compelling look at the candidates without their armor. The article includes a link to the video (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57518495/campaign-2012-obama-vs-romney/?tag=contentMain;contentBody) With a lot of rhetoric from each candidate that we've had to decode in stump speeches and at the conventions, it's nice to see content that is a little more upfront. The opinions the candidates voiced, while they have stirred up critics in either party, strike me as a more honest representation than their own descriptions of themselves. Obama's commentary on the Middle East was complicated for me. While I don't think it was very tactful and clearly on the spot, it seems to coincide with his policy quite well. After the discussion we had in class concerning his drone-strike campaign, the comments he made about Israel as peripheral and our alignment with democracy strike me as more satisfying for more liberal Democrats. I have trouble thinking of the way Romney handled the emergency room question as anything but a mistake. I know very little about healthcare policy, and it's totally clear to me that what he proposes isn't sustainable on any level. From the maintenance of a healthcare system that runs like this to the cost on the individual family, his proposal demonstrates very little thought to me, which might be
  •  
    Very interesting to see Obama's full quotes and partial quotes used out of context to support his position. Romney's answer on health care and emergency room seems to show his lack of economic sense.
miles henderson

Romney Adopts Softer Tone in Critique of Obama - 3 views

  •  
    This article is very interesting because of the timing of Romney's softer tone in the critique of Obama so soon after many voters heard about the 43% comment Romney made. I think if Romney wants any chance of winning, he really needs to watch what he says and make sure he isn't made out to seem like more of a bad guy in the media. Although Romney compliments Obamacare he still points out what he does not like about it, showing his strong stance on what he thinks is positive and what needs change. It is unique that Romney is pointing out positive aspects of Obama care, because the GOP have often used Obamacare as one of the reasons why he should not be president again.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I tend to agree with you that being super partisan hasn't really worked for him so far, and that being a little nicer could be a good tactic. I like the point you make about Obamacare Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't mean that his policy needs to be entirely distinct from it in every way. This article reminds me of a conversation we had in our class about the "race to the center" that usually surrounds campaigning: since Obama and Romney have the far left and far right on their sides, the battle should be for the centrist voters. Maybe it's because of the general radicalization of his party (tea-party, etc.), but it seems to me that Romney hasn't been playing this game as much as he should. He can, and I would say should, be opposed to Obama in clear and distinct ways if he hopes to win, but I agree with you that it would be foolish to oppose him unconditionally. This attitude puts him in the position of bad guy.
  •  
    I don't think Romney has said what he wants to keep or change at all. The idea that he could only keep the part about preexisting conditions is actually impossible when you take a look at the law. Without a lot of the portions of the act, the preexisting conditions pare doesn't work. By making all Americans essentially purchase healthcare, the healthcare companies can provide for people with preexisting conditions. Without that part of the law, it wouldn't really work for the insurance companies to profitably have people with preexisting conditions covered. I look at this as more rhetoric without substance. Check the article I posted about Obamacare and conservative ideals. I think it paints a nice picture of why Romney is screwed when it comes to talking Obamacare.
  •  
    Yeah, this is an interesting call for Romney. I'm happy about it, but it certainly does seem calculated, especially his response of that he wants to keep "the part about pre-existing conditions." The phrase pre-existing condition is such an agitative buzzword, and it seems that this is a move intended to remove that specific buzzword from Obama's arsenal of rhetoric intended to pump up the base.
  •  
    I agree with what you said John about how this could be part of a Romney tactic of moving towards the center and I am curious what aspects of Obama's policies and ideas Romney would consider taking on. It's interesting to think about this in the context of your comment Eli, because it seems like a lot of the concepts that Romney latches onto simply don't work with the reality of a policy or with the Republican platform. Saying that he supports coverage for individuals with pre-existing conditions could make Romney more appealing on a human level, but if it is so detached from his general stance, it ends up being useless. I think a more well-thought out focus on centrists could be really beneficial.
cody s

Andrew Sullivan on the Promise of Obama's Second Term - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 5 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    The part about the "whiplash" for the Republican Party that you mention is compelling to me, partly because I've read things (I think a few on this Diigo group) that have suggested the exact opposite. Some Democrats are hoping that the radicalization of the Republican Party will continue and make a Democrat victory in 2016 a sure thing. What Sullivan is suggesting seems to make more sense. What he portrays as an entirely new second-term America under Obama seems to fit perfectly with the President's message of "finishing the job," and frankly strikes me as a little idealistic. The section on the first page that describes the unique conditions for a Reagan status second term (tax cuts, deficit was smaller, etc.) is very telling to me: from what I can tell, these circumstances don't exist in the same way today. For him to transform into the "bi-partisan hero" you are talking about with things like immigration reform, it seems like he will need to not simply "finish the job," but take on a totally new strategy (like, as Sullivan points out, Reagan did in his second term).
  •  
    This is a very compelling argument for giving Obama 4 more years to finish what he has started. Even though it talks about "potential not prediction." More and more I'm understanding that Reagan was more of a centrist and more practical than idealogical.
  •  
    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.
mabel taylor

Obamanomics: A Counterhistory - 8 views

  •  
    This article, about Obama's relationship with the economy, discusses the reality of policy work and the difficult task of assessing how he has handled the deterioration of the economy after the financial crisis. What is interesting in this article are the several dichotomies and contrasting, multi-faceted issues that are often highlighted when discussing the recession. First, there is Obama's assumption that with enough "policy help... on the way," the economy could sustain itself and not follow "the disturbing pattern of financial crises." Thinking that strong and focused policies could completely prevent the well-known aftershocks of an economic crisis left the Obama administration unprepared for "the downturn" that was "fundamentally different from a big, relatively brief recession." The article quotes Obama saying that his main mistake as President has been losing sight of the fact that there is more to fixing a problem then creating laws. Another interesting contrast mentioned in this article is that Obama has not failed in presenting the reality of the economy to the public, but "the story he and his advisers told themselves" was falsified. Related to the first point, Obama and his administration decided how they thought the economy would survive and while the information they used and told others was not factually inaccurate, they consumed and interpreted the facts incorrectly. This altering of understanding obviously has had large impacts and the article concludes by saying that while Obama says he has "done as well as could reasonably have been expected," the truth is he mistakenly avoided harder-to-accept concepts and construed them in an unrealistic way.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I'm curious why I had never heard this take on the recession before, especially from the President's administration. In finding a timeline that releases him from blame for the poor recovery, I think he should highlight the point you made in your first paragraph: that the scenario he dealt with was "fundamentally different" from a normal recession. This puts some pretty objective blame on the circumstances of his first few years, something he has tried to do and Romney has tried to counter. I agree with your second paragraph: it seems difficult to blame him entirely for poor recovery, if the situation he was handed is both unprecedented and beyond his power in some ways. What you said about him avoiding "harder-to-accept concepts" is really interesting to me. I'd never heard his handling of the economy phrased in that way before.
  •  
    I was most struck by the authors distinction between messaging and policy. He seemed to be saying that if only the Obama administration had understood that there was a huge risk that the recovery would be weak, they could have done some things to ensure that it would be stronger. The article really does not answer why or if they had made this mistake. It tells us that members of Obama's team knew about the research done by Reinhart and Rogoff. It does not explain whether they consciously ignored that research. I am not convinced that Obama could have made much difference based on the argument laid out here. There is too much "may well have" and "might have" and general conjecture.
  •  
    I'm sure that sometimes the conflicting desires of presidential candidates do interfere with economic recoveries. On one hand, they want to present a positive image of the economy, especially if they've been in office for a while. On the other, sometimes they have to take drastic measures to help the economy's recovery. It seems to me that these two things would necessarily conflict with each other, and I wonder which one is prioritized most often.
  •  
    I have heard that the "bubble" that Obama has been in during his 4 years in the white house has really had an effect on him. I was watching CNN the other night and James Carville, one of my favorite analysts who worked in the Clinton administration, was on doing some after debate coverage. He talked about how presidents are constantly surrounded by people telling them that they are doing a great job and sheltered from negativity. Although I'm sure this is an over simplification of what goes on at the white house, I'm sure there is some truth to the fact that it is easy to become out of touch as president.
miles henderson

Romney Vows to Deliver Country From Economic Travails - 3 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I agree that this speech did a good job attacking Obama and evoking the harsh economic conditions of his term. One thing that really bothered me, though, about this speech was Romney's claim that the Republicans made a good faith effort to support president Obama. I understand what he was doing, trying to identify with disillusioned Obama voters, but the fact is that the Republicans, in Congress and elsewhere, did everything they could to spite Obama while he was in office. Mitch McConnell, a Republican senator from Kentucky, gave a speech where he said his "number one priority" - above the economy, above welfare reform, above literally anything else - was to make Obama a one term president. In my eyes, it looks like Romney's claim that he and the Republican party wanted Obama to succeed is just blatantly untrue.
  •  
    I agree with Cody's last point, and I would definitely extend it beyond the presidential race. From what I can tell, a widespread Republican tactic during the past four years has been obstructing Obama's policy with filibusters, etc. I would totally understand trying to put your opponent down during a race, or even opposing his policy decisions during the term if there are viable alternatives, but I see this comment as lying about the partisan track-record here. The point Miles brings up about Romney's plan seems like a strong direction for his campaign to me, especially with the new spin being put on the governor's background. This is genius to me. At face value, he shuts down all of the criticism Democrats throw at his about his distance from the middle class by using his business background as an asset. So when he presents a plan he thinks will work, like you said, it comes from a guy whose credentials make him appear like he knows what he's talking about and can "get it right."
  •  
    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.
cody s

Why George W. Bush Will Decide the 2012 Election - Newsweek and The Daily Beast - 3 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...2 more comments...
  •  
    I'd also add that it's no coincidence, like Eli's article mentions, that Bush wasn't even at the Republican National Convention, contrasting Clinton's overwhelming presence at the DNC. In the same way that Obama is using Clinton to his benefit, I agree that Romney needs to distinguish himself from Bush in a deeper way than physical distance. For me, this comes down to his fiscal policy. He hasn't painted his plan for recovery (as a "fix-it man") in any terms other than blanket conservatism. One strategy I saw a little of in the Romney speech, like you mention, is the use of history. I'm wondering which would work better for his image: evoking situations where a fiscal conservative US thrived before Bush, or separating himself from Republican party of the past in any way he can. From what I can tell, creating his own distinct image seems like Romney's best bet.
  •  
    It is interesting how past presidents influence voting. At the DNC, Obama compared his deep doubts and controversy to those experienced by Lincoln. I doubt voters today have any idea that Lincoln was a Republican. I think I remember Romney quoting FDR in his speech even though his position about government's role in solving economic problems is in many ways the opposite of FDR. The article suggests that the only way for Romney to shake the ghost of Bush would be to define himself as a strong, distinct character like Eisenhower. Can a successful businessman do what a successful general did? It's hard to imagine how.
  •  
    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.
cody s

Barack Obama's economic record: End-of-term report | The Economist - 3 views

  •  
    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.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    I think this article does a good job of summarizing Obama's relationship with the economy in a methodical and detailed way. It gave clear descriptions of the steps through which Obama has attempted to restore the economy, balancing heavily number-based evidence with explanations of how Obama's personal initiative comes into play in the world of policy. There is also a good transition in the article to discussing how Obama will tackle issues if he has a second term, which discusses how Obama's often lofty promises, like saying he will not "not to raise taxes on 95% of families" are simply unrealistic and do not make a lot of sense. There is often a general feel that the promises presidential candidates make will be hard to bring to life, so having straightforward evidence to support this was helpful.
  •  
    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.
Anna Schutte

Do Tax Cuts Lead to Economic Growth? - 3 views

  •  
    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%.
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    This article seems to get one step closer to answering the question of "what actually works?" Like Ryan is saying, I don't think it's possible to graph growth and expect the points you mark to be the only ones creating the trends, but this in itself does not seem like a promising point for the Republican campaign: worst case scenario, the cuts do the damage the nytimes chart seems to imply, best case scenario, they do very little to bring growth back up. Neither one of these would be points for the campaign to highlight. What you're saying also makes me wonder exactly how central tax cuts are to the Romney fiscal plan. As a side note, the way that Ryan cites the circumstances of Bush's presidency for the downturn is funny to me, considering how they want Obama to take the responsibility for the entire recession.
  •  
    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.
miles henderson

Legalizing Marijuana - 3 views

  •  
    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?
  • ...1 more comment...
  •  
    Miles, I think the idea that "Americans are begging to wonder what stance each candidate has concerning marijuana legalization" is a huge overstatement. I think Americans are begging to wonder who can fix the economy for the most part. I don't think it will be a deciding factor either. While I support marijuana legalization, I don't believe many voters will decide their vote based upon a candidates stance on marijuana. I think that the amount of people that put marijuana legalization as their top priority will not be a large enough electorate for either candidate to really put any effort into trying to sway this group. This issue is also very complicated, because many marijuana advocates, the kind of people that would base their vote upon a candidate's stance on marijuana, want marijuana to remain under a medicinal classification like it is many states. I really just don't see this becoming a big issue.
  •  
    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.
1 - 20 Next › Last »
Showing 20 items per page