Group items tagged

This article talks about the second presidential debate, which will be happening tonight. It explains how Obama will get a second chance to make up for his first debate. What do you guys think about this second chance? Is it really a chance? 

I mentioned this in Abby's article but I think a better performance can help Obama, it can't undo what has already happened. When I think about his attitude during the first debate it makes me question: Is he tired of being President? Have the hardships gotten to him? The article also mentions, "Obama needs strong support from women voters if he hopes to beat the Republican" and in my opinion if someone is voting based upon rights for women...they would have to vote for Obama.

This part of the article stood out for me: "Both sides claimed victory". Both sides think they won, whereas after last week's debate Obama admitted that he had lost. Why do you guys think this is? Do they both legitimately think that they won, or do they just want to seem confident?

In this article, the question is raised of if Romney has two different sides, one that appeals to voters and one that appeals to donors. I found two parts of the article very interesting. One, that Romney answers a lot of questions from the donors but avoids them from the voters. And the second, that Romney actually goes in depth with his policies with the donors when tends to be vague with the voters.

While I would love to think that a candidate's statements remain solid no matter who the audience is, I know that isn't the truth. I think that it is somewhat inevitable that certain points are highlighted and others are downplayed in someone's platform when trying to win the support of a certain group.

A reason I can think of for this is that when you are trying to convince someone to vote for you, it's more about the big picture, "what direction do you want for our country" kind of campaigning. A vote for you means a vote in the right direction. When speaking to donors, it's about what their large donations are going to go towards specifically. It's much more of a commitment than just a vote, so it makes sense that there would be more information. I'm not saying this is the right way to handle it, and I agree that messages should stay consistent, but it might be a reason why.

This piece describes many of Obama's biggest foreign policy challenges in the next four years. It's nice to see Iraq off the list, but People said extremely similar things about Afghanistan after the last election. Also a big switch on Israel Palestime--he started his presidency pressuring Netanyahu to stop forming settlements.

Obama's lack of opinion on Iran is personally frightening. Ahmadinejad is insane and needs to be handled as such. He has said more than once that he isn't opposed to nuclear war, and considering that their nuclear program has quadrupled since 2008, Obama needs to continue (if not increase) sanctions in order to protect America.

This article talks about the speaker of the house, John Boehner, and his fight to get the House G.O.P to end the " nasty showdowns that marked so much of the last two years." Although there is still a large gap between the President and John Boehner, they both seem open to compromise, leading me to believe that America will be able to avoid the fiscal cliff that we are approaching and hopefully Obama's second term will get more done with the aid of John Boehner.

Well, Obama won the election and will continue to be president for the next four years. The next question that should be asked is whether or not he will be able come to a compromise with the republicans in the senate and in the house of representatives. As stated by the speaker of the house, John Bohner, the politicians are ready to be lead not as republicans or democrats, but as Americans. Do you think there will be compromise and will there continue to be conflicts, leading to more problems with this nation's economy?

I really hope that they are able to compromise. It seems a little ironic that a Republican is making the cry for bipartisanship because in the past four years Republicans have been making it nearly impossible for Obama to get anything done, and I'm afraid that that will continue to happen.

I'm hoping that with Obama's four years of experience, he has better learned how to navigate the system. But this deadlock in Washington remains a concern for many, I think.

This article talks about Obama's calm and collected response to the upcoming storm hitting back east. Obama has expressed concern about the storm to America but not in a panicked manner. I think made the right move by not focusing on the election here but rather everyone's safety. Having a president who makes Americans feel safe is important. One question that I have is will the weather affect the polls next week? 

Well, if Obama didn't do anything about the storm, then he would have probably lost votes in a lot of states affected in the area. Just look at how much bad press Bush got after Katrina. Obama needed a standing for America moment after skipping out on national security matters to go on TV.

I think people will always like a candidate that tends to pressing issues instead of campaigning because this is another sort of campaigning: actions speak louder than words! Obama made the right move in helping with the hurricane, but it was a political decision as well.

This article is about Obama's campaign switching over and talking about how Romney changes his policies and can therefore not be trusted. It emphasizes Obama keeping his word and focuses on a rally in Florida. It also discusses Obama referring to "Romnesia" The quote that really stood out to me was, "On the auto industry bailout, the hiring of public school teachers and Medicare, Obama said Romney is aiming to disguise his real positions in order to win the election." Do you think that Romney's position changes are going to have a negative or positive effect on his campaign? And, do you think that these are genuine changes or are for the polls?

When researching energy for the issues project we just completed, I read an article about an environmentalist who was leaning towards Romney, despite his views on energy resources that harm the environment, because his past positions on green energy gave her hope. Also, on a previous article, we were discussing how people might take Romney's switches as a confirmation of his concern for the people. At the same time, a lack of commitment to his beliefs could prove a lack of commitment to the people and his job. I know I feel more connected to that second argument, but I am very curious to how the rest of the country will look at this.

I'm not sure how Romney disguising his real plans would benefit him in any sort of way-if helping the country is not his "real goal", what is his goal in becoming president? And why would he present something other than the best plan he's got if he wants to win votes?