Promising Polls
Here is the link for the current polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08gen.htm
It showing Hilary Clinton in the lead currently, which is interesting news. This shows that America maybe finally ready for a woman president. However, I have a feeling that the polls will change.
The democratic party have the lead, which I was expecting. However electing a new president is always different. With Bush finally leaving the White House, our next president has a lot of work to do.
Taking Politics Into Our Own Hands
Taking Politics Into Our Own Hands
If only I could raise $30 million in three weeks…
According to CNN’s Political Ticker, Newt Gingrich announced Monday that he would enter the campaign if donors contributed “at least $30 million… over a three-week period starting Monday and ending Oct. 21.”
But before you all experience a euphoria-induced blog-o-seizure, let’s think about Gingrich’s chances should he enter the ‘invisible primary.’
As most of you have probably noticed, a couple battleground political states are waging a rather subtle yet important war. Each vying to overtake New Hampshire for the title of ‘first primary,’ preliminary elections are moving closer and closer to the beginning of 2008. I’ve even heard CNN refer to what was known as ‘Super Tuesday’ as ‘Super Duper Tuesday’ (thanks, Wolf…) because the primaries now resemble a sort of national referendum on the candidates.
That effectively leaves Gingrich four months to campaign; a hurdle that underlies the effects of unequal media (in)exposure during the primary process.
And let’s not forget Gingrich’s $30 million challenge. As of June 30, 2007, the top two candidate in terms of fund raising, Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani, campaigned for nearly $35 million and $33 million, respectively.
In other words, Gingrich hopes to do in three months what the current candidates have been doing for well over six. That’s a little too idealist for me.
I mean, I, like anyone else, want to see a competent man or woman elected to the office of the president in 2008. I, again like the rest of this Web site’s bloggers, hope the person who makes the grade does so fairly and openly with as much discourse as possible. But there is a fine line between idealism and pragmatism. Gingrich should run, but he needs to tone down his expectations if he wants to be successful; expectations are usually the reasons candidates fail. And he has to remember that despite his criticism, the system is what it is. He can hate the present state of political discourse and lambaste the insular primary or donor systems all to the approval of voter applause, but he has to play and rely on the system if he wishes to fix it. Tis the irony of politics.
The political clock is ticking, Newt.
Slate readers get thinking about debates
I was looking around on Slate.com earlier. Apparently a few months ago the online publication asked its readers for their opinions on how to improve the current presidential debates. There are some suggestions from the Slate readers that are definatly worth looking at, and a few that are a bit “out there.” Here’s a rundown of some of the more noteable points:
Fact Checking During the Debates: “In a first round, journalists would question the candidates. Those answers would then be fact-checked by a panel. During the fact-checking, candidates would be allowed to say whatever they wanted in a second round. (This free gab period would be a sweetener that might entice them to participate.) In the third round, the fact-checking panel would make candidates defend their distortions, ask for clarifications, or point out which questions the candidates had ducked altogether.”
Give the audience control: We saw this type thing with the CNN/Youtube debates, but several Slate readers suggested a different take on it inspired by shows like American Idol and Survivor. The audience would have the power to vote candidates off the stage who’s answers were no good. And if a candidate began to ramble, his microphone could be cut off.
Let the candidates question each other: Candidates sparring against one another on various topics may be more entertaining and yield better debate than the standard panel of journalists and academics asking questions.
To read some of the other ideas from the Slate.com readership, here’s the link the article: http://slate.com/id/2166144/
Candidate Calculator
So I found this via the usual annoying spam sent to me by my aunt. It’s for those of you who are too lazy to think for yourselves, too lazy to watch any of the debates, and definitely too lazy to pick up a newspaper and read anything about the 2008 Presidential candidates. It’s the Candidate Calculator! The very sophisticated calculator asks you “yes” or “no” questions about whether you support certain issues, like the Iraq war, abortion rights, and immigration policy. It then allows you to label the issue as one of low, medium, or high importance creating an accurate and fine-tuned calculation. In the results it displays the Presidential candidate that is your number one match, as well as candidates that are close matches, and your least compatible choices.
While this is funny, and obviously not a real way to choose a candidate, I wonder if it is not a more short-winded version of picking a candidate than watching Presidential debates, or reading about their opinions on issues in newspapers. Particularly today, candidates don’t go into depth about their stances regarding certain matters. The public doesn’t really know much more than the neutral and glossed-over version that is fed to us after much instruction from their PR person. So perhaps we should give up and just use the trusty Candidate Calculator.
Also, my mother I were talking, and she told me she did her calcuation just for fun, and she, an avid Hillary supporter, found that her political views, in fact, lined up more with Denis Kucinich’s politics. This to me is an expression of the limited realistic options faced by those who are very leftist. Obviously Kucinich is not going to get the nomination, and most likely I will end up voting for the more moderate nominee. Sometimes its very frustrating for me, because it sucks to have to settle!
(Not) Taking a Stance
In response to mschellentrager’s most recent post:
Although disappointing, it comes as no surprise to me that the Democratic presidential candidates did not take a stronger stance on bringing our troops home from Iraq. It is no longer common for candidates to take such strong and definite stands during debates, partially because the strict structure does not encourage candidates to. The small time frame given to answer questions and respond is hardly long enough to explain a plan to withdraw troops.
This has been the topic I have continually revisited these past three weeks. Although other people in the class might not realize it, they are connecting present day politics to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, as “mschellentrager” did. Many people have a problem with the way debates are run and the information that the American public receives from them. Debates are no longer used as a platform to introduce all of a candidate’s plans if elected. There are additional television interviews, newspaper stories, even Wikipedia entries. I lump the debates into the same category as all of these.
Debates have lost their prominence in the United States. Candidates do not feel the need to take firm stands on issues, just stay in the middle ground. Debate structure needs to be revamped before we will see politicians stating their opinions more authoritatively.
Quotable Quotes
I was having a hell of a time today, trying to write this blog. So, I decided to veer a bit off topic and post some quotes about politics and debate and attempt to analyze them or apply them to ‘today’s’ world.
1) Debate and divergence of views can only enrich our history and culture.
-Ibrahim Babangida
I wasn’t sure who the author of this first quote was, so I looked Babangida up on Wikipedia. He was the 8th president of Nigeria, in power from 1985 until 1993. Although he did not necessarily utilize this quote in his regime, I still think it to be a fitting quotation for our discussions on politics. If debate and divergence can only enrich our history and culture, than why is it politicians so desperately avoid any real debate or divergence of opinion?
2) A politician’s goal is always to manipulate public debate. I think there are some politicians with higher goals. But all of them get corrupted by power.
-Dean Koontz
Dean Koontz, as many know is a fiction writer, generally of mystery/suspense novels. One of the major problems with modern political debates is the lack of any sincerity. As Koontz says, politicians are always trying to manipulate public debate; they are constantly spinning stories, rephrasing and backtracking so as to appeal to all voters. The quotation continues to say Koontz believes there exist some politicians who have higher aims than simply to win votes, but in the end all our corrupted by power, I statement I tend to agree with.
3) After last night’s debate, the reputation of Messieurs Lincoln and Douglas is secure.
-Edward R. Murrow
This quotation was my personal favorite, possibly because I’m a big fan of Edward Murrow, or possible because of its implications. If in the 1950s political debates were poor enough for Murrow to make this statement then to what levels have sunk to today, fifty years later?
In short, these are just a few of many thousands of quotes on politics, debate, and the state of the nation, but they three which I liked and felt had some relevance to our course and blog.
Here are the links for the wikipedia pages of the three authors of the quotations:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibrahim_Babangida
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Koontz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Murrow
Sticks and Stones May Break My Bones…
By now, I am sure that most of you have heard about Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s little visit to Columbia University. This past Monday, Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs invited President Ahmadinejad to speak at the World Leaders Forum. This was a gutsy move on Columbia’s part, and many were hesitant to even invite the President, yet what happened during the forum was a sight to see.
Usually when introducing a guest speaker, one does not usually resort to calling them names. Surprisingly, Columbia University President Lee Bollinger took this approach while introducing President Ahmadinejad, setting the maturity precedence for a truly amateurish forum. Sure, President Ahmadinejad has said some truly tactless, insensitive comments, and it had to be tempting for Bollinger to call Ahmadinejad out for his controversial comments on the holocaust, yet by saying what he did, Bollinger ultimately sunk down to Ahmadinejad’s maturity level:
“Mr. President, you exhibit all the signs of a petty and cruel dictator, and so I ask you, why have womenmembers of the Bahá’ í Faith, homosexuals and so many of our academic colleagues become targets of persecution in your country?”
Come on, Bollinger. Not calling your guest a petty and cruel dictator is something you should have learned in debutant training school. After Bollinger threw out his zinger at Ahmadinejad, the audience began to applaud. I couldn’t help but feel as though I was watching an episode of Maury where some disgruntled housewife called out her unfaithful husband –- and had the paternity test results to back it up. Maturity clearly was not anyone’s prerogative at the forum. On the other hand, though, the forum’s rampant immaturity did bring about something hilarious. In response to Bollinger’s incessant questions relating to Iran’s treatment of homosexuals, President Ahmadinejad’s acidic – if petty and cruel – tongue unleashed one of the finer quotes of 2007:
“In Iran we don’t have homosexuals like in your country. In Iran we do not have this phenomenon. I don’t know who has told you that we have it.”
In the wise words of Kathy Griffin, “Where my gays at?!” It would not surprise me that there aren’t many out homosexuals in Iran because the legal consequences they would face are somewhat daunting. As stipulated by Iranian law, sodomy is a crime and if two consenting adults are caught in the act, they could face death. Consenting adult lesbians caught in the act are subjected to 100 lashings. I suppose it’s no wonder why Ahmadinejad can’t find any homosexuals in Iran.
As ridiculous as Ahmadinejad may be at times, Bollinger’s juvenile tactics were somewhat uncalled for. But then again, Bollinger did get Ahmadinejad to claim that there aren’t any homosexuals in Iran.
Making the blogosphere a little bigger…
I feel like we’re in a bubble. A “blogobubble,” if you will.
We’re never going to accomplish the goal of this blog if we don’t communicate with actual people. I mean, writing articles and all is fun, but I feel like we’re just writing it for the sake of writing something to turn in. I realize this is a class assignment and we are getting a grade on it, but we need to make sure that this is more fun than anything. And that it actually has a purpose that transcends the requirements for our class.
This week, as I was looking over other blogs, I have noticed that other blogs actually tackle the issues and do it in a matter that is interactive and innovative. We should try to be more like that… Instead of bringing up a whole different topic, write a blog post adding more to someone has already brought up, or disagree with another post and write about that.
Wouldn’t it be cool if we turned into a huge political debate that got some actual attention from big wigs? I think that should be our ultimate goal. Let’s create enough stir so that people actually come to us, comment on our posts, and use us as a source for their blog posts.
So, let’s try and become part of the blogosphere and get out of our blogobubble. Let’s get some debate going on! That’s what this is for, right?
Anyways, here’s a blog for you to look at: http://technorati.com/blogs/www.foxattacks.com. Yay for blogs!
M. Appeal (Mass Appeal) 