Palin Group

Slate comes through, as always, with a very critical description of GOP politics. In this article, William Saletan picks apart Romney's RNC speech and uses it to predict the remainder of Mitt's campaign. Read with a grain of salt, as Slate often tries to trick you into thinking its articles are objective. 

I, personally, found the article to be very similar to our class discussions, especially on the topic of tactics that Romney used in his speech, including calculated jabs and heart-warming stories. That being said, this article is pretty critical of Romney.

I felt like this article broke down Romney's speech very well. I felt like the tone was not necessary liberal, but more of a neutral tone that was trying to explain Romney speech was trying to accomplish in his speech.

This article is about the struggle to win Ohio-a very divided state that seems to be necessary for either candidate to win. It outlines the tactics that each candidate is taking there while campaigning this weekend.

It seems like both candidates are criticizing the other pretty harshly. Do you think this tactic will convince Ohio either way? It's hard for me to get my confusion cleared up when there's all this political "punching".

I feel like this article makes me think there is something seriously wrong with the electoral college. Hearing that one state, Ohio, is the main focus of both candidates' campaigns as well as the part of the article that stated that no Republican president has ever been elected without winning Ohio made me feel like Ohio has an unfair say in the election which leads me to believe that the electoral college system needs to be reformed.

This article is highlights the need for this coming week's Democratic Convention to mimic the optimism that Obama's previous convention in 2008 had. Being that Obama's speech is after that of Romney's, it will be interesting to see if he subtly responds to anything that Romney said. Regardless, it is clear that Obama must recapture America.

I agree that is is impossible to recapture the hope Obama had four years ago. I found it interesting to read this article after listening to his speech because I was able to compare what Obama did to what the article was suggesting. Again I agree that Obama attacking Romney is slightly disappointing and not what I expect or want to see from him normally. I think in his speech he did do a little bit of attacking with his various jokes, the one standing out to me at the moment being when Romney called Russie the nation's greatest enemy.

It was interesting to see the different tactics that are suggested that Obama needed to do so that he would perform well at the Democratic convention. After seeing the convention I feel like Obama did follow all of these tactics, but not to his fullest ability. I felt like his attacks on Romney were not as intense as when Romney was attacking Obama at the republican convention. I feel like this is a good thing because the fact that he was not constantly attacking Romney showed that he had an agenda in his speech rather than Romney who consistently attacked Obama in his republican convention speech.

It's so frustrating to me that campaigns seem to be all about money. Shouldn't they be about the candidates ideas?

I agree that it is frustrating how much a campaign is dependent on money but when I think about it, money is what gives candidates the ability to share their ideas with the most people. Whether or not something just as a TV commercial is more about a candidates ideas or solely bashing another candidiate, the advertisement is reaching a population who may not ordinarily have much interest in the election. Money is what enables candidates to travel around the nation to give speeches ect. So although it is extremely frustrating, money does play a crucial role in even just spreading the candidates ideas.

It frustrates me too. It seems that all of the money spent campaigning could go to something much more useful in our government. But I agree with you Abby that for many people, commercials and any media are some of the only exposure that people have to the current election, which is why they are so crucial.

this article lists each of the factors that are going to decide the last 2 months of the election, including money, debates, and swing states, all of which I expected. However, one factor that I didn't think about is Johnson's influence in the overall election. He seems to be gaining votes from republicans more than democrats, which could harm Romney more than I would have thought.

It's interesting to me that which candidate people vote for seems to have nothing to do with ideas or plans for the country, just how much advertising there is. Are people really this easily influenced by advertising? Also, it's funny that they have mock debates, Obama going against John Kerry as Romney. And, Savannah, I was surprised about Gary Johnson, too. I've never heard of him before.

I'm really bothers me that "Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney have to build substantial room into their schedules for fund-raising, including more time than they would like traveling to places that are not competitive politically but are flush with wealthy donors, starting with New York and Los Angeles." I don't like how so much of the election is spent raising money rather than making more explicit platforms and addressing important issues.

This article gives quote by Romney saying he is not going to change all of Obama's healthcare and he is not going to lower taxes for the wealthy. The article shows him trying to "meet the press" 

I find it really interesting that Romney does not want to get rid of Obama's health plan, rather he wants to change some parts of the reform like give coverage to kids for as long as they want as well as allowing people with pre-existing conditions. In my opinion just looking at what Romney's wants to do with healthcare is not as bad as it seems, but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem.

Yadria- I am slightly confused by what you mean with "but looking at it more thoroughly it would be a problem". Do you disagree with his plan? Just wondering. I agree with Ryan. Cutting spending, not taxes is the best way to get ourselves out of debt. The federal budget deficit is roughly a third of our federal spending, and is growing at an alarming rate. Our gross debt to GDP ratio is 104% because of our excessive spending. The per-capitia taxpayer debt (since only a third of americans pay taxes) is around 140,000. The fact of the matter is, no matter what way you want to look at it, we as a country are spending way too much. Yes, tax cuts for the middle class would be nice, but placing the debts on those making more than 250,000 a year is far from a solution because it is punishing those who work hard and stimulate the economy. Those small-buisness-owners, the job creators, are only going to get slammed with tax increases, and they are going to drag the economy down with them. Yes, our tax revenue is increasing, but drastically slower than the rate of our spending, which is a massive problem that can only be solved by cutting spending and reducing our budget deficit, unless Obama wants to try to increase taxes by 150%.

Romney's energy views

This is an incredibly drastic change between two Romneys which I agree makes me a feel a bit uneasy. That being said, as a generalization, I take the standpoint that having him changes his views some to be more likely to win the election is not necessarily a bad thing. Assuming he continues to do this if elected, it means that he will be acting to serve the more, or at least what he believes to be, the more popular vote on select issues. I do wonder if he hadn't changed his views on this matter where we would be in the election right now. Would he lose voters because they don't agree with his energy policy or gain democratic voters who are looking for a strong stance on clean energy? Would the republican voters be upset enough about his energy policy to truly not vote for him or would his other republican positions outweigh it and not make him sacrifice many votes at all?

I can't blame Romney for changing his opinion on investing in green energy, just look at how terrible government investment in green energy has come. He does still believe that green energy is good, but wants the government to stay out of it for obvious reasons. Yes, he is shifty, but so is every politician that has ever existed ever. For instance, Obama promised not to raise taxes on the middle class, but he extended the bush era tax cuts and not to mention set up ACA to require about 1 trillion in tax revenue when he only increased taxes by 550 billion. Obama says lots of things that he also has no intention of following too, this 550 billion increase isn't going to come at no cost to the middle class. What all politicians say and do are very different things.

page one of two

I think I need to learn more about unions and how exactly they work to gain a better understanding of this article. It's interesting how important a state's votes can be in an election. Talking about the importance of winning over Ohio really stood out to me and how big of a deal that is. It's good that Obama's campaign is able to recognize that they will not raise as much money at Romney and are working to catch up on votes with other means.

I'd like to point out here that, while Restore Our Future--the conservative super PAC supporting Romney--has an expenditure quadrupling that of Priorities USA--the super PAC supporting Obama--the influence of corporations and wealthy independent donors has played a major role on both sides in this election [http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/superpacs.php].

Obama is really emphasizing the Auto-industry bailout and the positive outcomes that have resulted from his revenue injection. Also, Romney is gaining ground.

I understand why Obama's campaign continues to focus on their success in the past four years because it is a lot easier for people to pick out the negatives themselves than the positives. That being said, I agree that it is important that he focus a lot on future progress which I think he usually does tend to do.

I feel like this speech that Obama made at the car maker factory is similar to what Romney was doing at his stump speech at the oil company. They were both relating to their audience. This makes sense since North Carolina is a swing state. Obama was trying to appeal to them and gain their vote.

This article looks at Mitt Romney's constant shift on his position on abortion. The unclearness of whether or not he supports it might affect/ not go in line with what the republican's party view on abortion is. 

I'm sure we all have our own beliefs about abortion, but I can't see what's so bad about changing your standpoint on an issue to get more votes. As I look at it, it could seem like just panhandling for votes, but it could also be seen as changing your views to line up with a larger amount of the American people who could elect you. I think what Romney is guilty of in this situation is not changing his mind, but lying about it.

What stands out to me is that to news reports that have different audiences, he changed in viewpoint. I understanding settling on a policy that works with the rest of your campaign (works with the vp too) but what is not okay him being unclear about his position. If he wants to line his position up with that of the most popular vote, fine, but he needs to be clear about his final decision and stick with it so people know exactly what they are voting for.

This article discusses the how the rate of unemployment has decreased and it's affects on Obama's campaign.  Although this is good according to Romney, it is not the best that we can do. Does the fact that the percent it decreased is not a lot? Is it still an accomplishment?

I agree. I think what is key about the article is the quote, "Indeed, the economy has added jobs for 24 straight months." What resinates with me which the article touched on and our speaker on the economy in class went in detail with is the idea that because of the growth in population, to have job growth, not only does Obama have to create more jobs than before, but he has to do that on top of an addition number of jobs that account for the increase in population. This is something I never really thought about before but makes a huge difference in how I look at his success in making more jobs.

However, unemployment inequality has increased and college students are coming out of college with jobs that they are vastly overqualified for. Also, long term unemployment rates have increased, which in my opinion is a more important number than the short term. If Obama wants to be respected in my opinion, he has to create more long term jobs, which he hasn't done. He has only made our country more dependent on government influence. Just because unemployment is 7.8 does not mean that the economy is actually getting better. The 7.8 is taking into account part time employment, which does not indicate economical well being, especially since 2 million will be laid off before the holiday season. And I'm curious to hear what this speaker you are talking about said, please explain.

Obama's campaign is fighting to say that the country is better off than it was 4 years ago in response to Republicans saying otherwise.

This question of whether America is better of now than it was four years ago is really hard to measure. What does better of mean? Obama has been able to accomplish things like kill Osama bin Laden, create obamacare, and stop the war in Iraq. These things that Obama has done make me believe that we are better of.

This article really highlights their wars over the middle class and shows different definitions on what is considered to make the country better off. I'm not surprised that both the GOP and the democrats are trying their hardest to make themselves better in the eyes of the middle class, which is the 'swing state' of the financial world. I agree with the republicans completely on this, I feel like 50,000 dollars per citizen in debt, a doubling of our long term unemployment rates, the 40% of every dollar being spent that is borrowed, and that our national debt under him is growing at a rate fast enough to equal our gdp in a couple of months are all overshadowing anything else from obama's presidency. ACA is only going to increase our national debt at the steep price of those it is trying to help, not to mention the wars on terrorism are far from over even though Osama is dead.

This is something to read bits and pieces of--not every single word. I think of Rush Limbaugh as a conservative version of John Stewart. He's a source of entertainment as well as a political commentator so he has no responsibility to consider anything objectively.

I thought the part where he talked about how the poles right now are just to shape your vote was really strong. Seeing the poles two months before the election can change but, if you see Obama is ahead, it can shape your vote to believe Romney has already lost or the other way around.

I thought the part where he talked about people who are being supported by the government are too scared to not vote for Obama was really interesting. I don't think it's fair to say "The fact that he's destroyed the economy will actually benefit him...The fact that he's destroyed the economy is gonna benefit Obama because all those people who are now on some sort of welfare-like assistance are gonna be scared to death to get rid of Obama because then what will become of their meager existence?"

This is about a man who power lifted Obama, I was just curious what people thought about this.Was it professional? Does it help Obama's image?

Although this might not change many viewpoints I think it gives a really good impression for Obama. Being able to just stop into a random pizza place and joking around about the strength of a guy makes him seem like just a normal American guy. I think Van Duzer's quote in the article really made that point saying, "I don't vote party line, I vote who I feel comfortable with, and I do feel extremely comfortable with him." For some people feeling a connection and feel "comfortable" is really important. If Obama can make himself seem like the guy you could just hang out with I think that could potentially do a lot for his voters.

I agree that this makes Obama seem personable and "normal" which many people want to see in a candidate. I also think the nature of politics and presidents have changed throughout the years. Today, presidents seem more relatable and "down to earth" as they appear on talk shows and in magazines with their kids compared to how presidents were represented 50 years ago.

          I wanted to share this article as sort of a follow up to my previous one which discussed Obama before his DNC speech. This article discusses Obama played his DNC speech safe. His speech did not have many new ideas and proposals. Instead he tried to appeal to an audience beyond the Democratic one by stressing that he is willing to work across party lines.          One thing that particularly drew my attention to this article was that is recognized Obama's lack of discussion on health care. For a president that spent much of his first term on a new health-care refe, he barely discussed it. 

I feel like at this point, no matter what Obama or Romney do, their own parties will support them and the other will criticize. In relation to this article, if Obama says that his plan is working, Democrats will say that he is confident while Republicans will call him an arrogant liar. If he's aware of his own failings, as he was at his DNC speech, Democrats will say that he's humble and relatable, while Republicans will say that he doesn't even have faith in himself.

I agree with Sabrina that their own party will support them no matter what direction they take their speech. I think that what Obama did though, "playing it safe" was a smart move towards independent voters. By not taking a super strong direction in the negative or the positive, it kept him appearing calm while still confident and allowed independent voters to see him in that respect.

Romney is using Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment rate below 8% as one of his most convincing points against the president's last four years.

Yes job creation is not the only question in "are you better off than you were four years ago?" but it is a big one. Having a job is a key to having a good life. It is one of the issues that most directly affects each American person. Even someone who pays no attention to politics or policy whatsoever is directly affected by jobs. So if Obama cannot create jobs now, I can see why the Romney campaign would choose to focus on criticizing that so strongly.

Unemployment has become such a pressing issue for many families that Romney is smart to bring up Obama's failed promises to lower the unemployment. Because having jobs is important to everyone, it makes sense that Romney is using this to the best of his advantage. That said, there is only so much control that Obama has and I don't think his "failed promise" leads directly to "are you better off than you were four years ago?"

Overall, this article is very critical of Romney, claiming that Obama is making bigger leads in swing states. Romney is extremely shifty in his views and doesn't make it clear what finances he has planned. Also, this article hints towards the end the slight opinion differences of Romney and ryan which could be very problematic.

"sixty days is like sixty years in campaign time" seems like an overplay of hopefulness. I take from this article that Romney's people can only really argue that Mitt still has a chance while Obama's people believe he will more than likely win.

Romney really does need to get his act together. Ryan seems to be running the show a little bit more than he should, but with the debates soon to start, Romney will have a little more hope on his side. Also, unemployment has risen from 1.9% through Obama's term, and statistically when unemployment is greater than 7.2 the incumbent doesn't win. The election has even changed drastically since I posted this article: The libyan assassination, the Romney 47% dependent on Government, etc, I do agree that 60 days can seem like 60 years. Romney does have to cover a lot of ground.

This article is able about how Obama recently went on the The View while Mrs. Clinton met with presidents from the Middle East. This article got me thinking about media and how presidents seem more relatable by going on talk shows than talking to political leaders. 

I agree that assisting needs in foreign affairs should come before campaigning. In terms of campaigning, however, it is hard to say which is more important between the two, because while to the well-informed population of America dealing with presidential issues would definitely be more helpful towards his campaign, the large number of uninformed American citizens rely on things like talkshows to understand the views and beliefs of the candidate more so than their work as a member of the government.

I agree with you sami! I think that to people who are interested in and know about foreign affairs would have appreciate Obama attending the meeting rather than going to the view. Right now I feel like Obama should be focusing on his campaign since the elections are soon. Also Obama probably deals with foreign policy on a regular bases so it is mot like he never has meet with these officials before.

Now, despite small annual improvements, the deficit for the fiscal year that ends on Sunday will surpass $1 trillion for the fourth straight time. Against that headline-grabbing figure, Mr. Obama's explanation - that the deficit he inherited is actually on a path to be cut in half just a year later than he promised, measured as a percentage of the economy's total output - risks sounding professorial at best. This article highlights Obama's failing economic policies and challenges whether or not he will be up for fixing the problem if he is re-elected in 2012. It also highlights Romney's policies and what he plans to do if he ends up in office in January. What do you guys think? Who's plan is better and what could Obama have done better during his term as President to fix our economy?

I agree with Obama in his plans. I think that Romney is just saying what he thinks people want to hear without thinking of the consequences or the practical applications. However, I wish that Obama would stop saying that he inherited the problem. Yes, he did. But he needs to follow his campaign and look forward instead of back.

I think this quote is interesting: "The fiscal imbalance on Mr. Obama's watch, however much a result of economic and demographic factors beyond his control as well as his own policy choices, has increased the nation's accumulated debt by about 40 percent and has saddled him with one of his biggest vulnerabilities." I know that things have been beyond his control. Sabrina, this reminds me of Michael Potepan's talk the other day. He mentioned that the government has a really hard time of getting anything done right now which is maybe why nothing has changed, regardless of his campaign.

Savannah, what do you mean by going to far?

I believe that Affermative Action is a necessity, and we cannot say that it is outdated until all African Americans are completely integrated into America. In the US at the moment, we see that the amount of African Americans going to college is far less than the amount of Caucasians who attend college. Education is the first step towards equality, and therefore, I believe that we should allow more African Americans to progress to higher education so that they may eliminate, or reduce, the prejudice that their race faces. I do, however, believe that other factors, such as economic class, should be factored in as well in order for people in unfavorable situations to help their families by gaining a good education. Until the average African American makes the same salary and the average caucasian, I believe that Affirmative Action is necessary.

Also, we (white Americans) enslaved and abused their people, the least we can do is help them get an education.