Candidates and their blogs
I am new to the world of both blogging and politics. I think it is important to follow politics but I find it very hard because I am always so busy. The last thing I want to do after a long day of classes or work is to start talking politics. I chose the Candidate positions II group because I want to become more informed on politics and more importantly on the presidential candidates. Instead of searching long and hard on the internet for issues surrounding the candidates, I thought it would be best to go straight to them. I want to take a better look at each candidates website and monitor their positions on press issues, debate issues, democratic discourse issues, and comments on the media. After observing their websites, I will then turn to news sources to see how the candidates are portrayed in the media.
I started out thinking that I would examine all of the presidential candidates websites… But this was taking much longer than I anticipated. So I decided that for this post I would only cover 4 candidates, 2 democrats and 2 republicans. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, John McCain, and Rudy Giuliani were the presidential candidates whose websites I looked at. I was impressed by all of them. I had to literally sign in, meaning I gave my name, email, and zip code, to get into all of them except for Rudy Giuliani’s. What a great way to keep in touch with supporters. I was surprised to see that all the candidates had their own blogs established. Is it necessary then for other independent organizations to be asking candidates to respond to their blog sites? I’m also curious as to if we could link our blog to all of the candidates blogs? If it’s possible then I think it’d be a great way to monitor the candidates.
I will definitely need to spend some more time on these websites to get more information about the candidates. This was just a brief overview of how accessible the candidate’s positions are to voters. Spend a little time each week looking at these sites and one can stay informed. I’ve provided a link to Obama, Clinton, McCain, and Giuliani’s pages if anyone is interested. Furthermore, for those of you that know more about blogging, is it possible to link our blog to their blogs?
Technorati
Election Guide
I’ve come across another great resource (in addition to a fellow blogger’s earlier post) for understanding the upcoming election. The New York Times’ Election Guide 2008 provides a slew of helpful charts, calendars and candidate testimonials.
The guide offers little commentary — you can find that on the NYT’s politics blog — but is really invaluable for clarifying candidate’s positions by assembling some quotable candidate moments from other news sources.
In true NYT fashion (it’s hard to think of an online newspaper that loves interactive maps more), there are also interesting maps that show where candidates’ campaign finances come from. These graphics show some figures which should be shocking but probably aren’t. For instance, Mitt Romney — who comes in third for campaign fund-raising at a measly $44.4 million — has spent $8.9 million of his own money on his campaign.
Interestingly enough, on the election guide site, the “Issues” link is located below “Finances.” What does this say about priorities?
Fight Face
Although I doubt that the United States is the only country lacking in exciting political debates, it certainly proves interesting to compare are structured, organized political debates to similar debates in other nations. France for example, which just had a presidential election last May, takes a very different approach to its presidential debates.
The difference between the first three clips and the last one is quite shocking. Granted, there are one or two similarities. The French presidential candidates like their American counterparts are situated in a formal setting. However, outside of this, there are very few similarities that can be drawn between the first three clips and the last one. It is unfortunate that political debates in the United States or not as open-ended as debates in other nations. If politicians were forced to face the tough questions Americans would be able to gain a better understanding of each politician’s platform. Forcing politicians to answer the tough questions would also make them a hell of a lot more accountable and therefore, possibly, potentially, maybe a little more responsible.
Fool me twice, 2008 edition
Head first into the ‘invisible primary’ contest, I caught wind of a not-so-fantastic Mitt Romney ad today that read:
“If we’re going to change Washington, Republicans have to put our own house in order,” Romney says, speaking directly to the camera. “We can’t be like Democrats — a party of big spending. We can’t pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration. We can’t have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno.”
Let’s dissect this gem, shall we?
“[Republicans] can’t be like Democrats — a party of big spending,” begins Romney’s litany. However, a look at federal budget deficit numbers since 1970 seems to conclude otherwise. To spare you a painstaking glance at the obvious, the bar graph demonstrates that in 1983, 1992 and 2003, when Republicans were in office, the US budget deficit (adjusted for inflation) was at its highest. Granted, Democrats had their big spenders too. Clinton’s shocking budget surplus from 1999 onward occurred, in part, due to Republican congressional support. But the graph, to an extent, proves Romney wrong. The Republicans are just as reckless at spending as their left-leaning brethren. The score: 1-0, simple common sense.
“We can’t pretend our borders are secure from illegal immigration,” Romney says next. Much as I may dislike the guy, he’s correct on this one. The Christian Science Monitor, shattering some hopes and dreams last May, indicated that anywhere from 7 to 20 million immigrants presently live in the US, though official census records estimate there are approximately 8.5 million. Specifics aside, that number is astounding considering how often politicians referenced immigration along the campaign trail.
Yet Romney, who likely experiences a boatload of immigration troubles up in the great state of Massachusetts, said little else on the issue. There was no mention of how the US could secure its borders without disturbing Mexicans’ access to the jobs the American economy takes for granted. And certainly, Romney’s remarks failed to address a recent ICE report that stipulated it would cost nearly $94 billion to detain and deport all the illegal immigrants currently living in the US (what was that about big spending?). 2-0, informed voters.
Finally, Romney articulates that “We can’t have ethical standards that are a punch line for Jay Leno.” To a degree, I can’t take that away from the man. The biggest problem Americans (ought to) have with their political system is inadequate representation; that partisan politics, when combined with big bureaucracy, seem to upset any notion of political efficacy. But my problem isn’t with what Romney said, it’s how he intends to accomplish that goal. In my mind, not a single politician on either side of the political fence has done his or her part to clean up Congress’ tattered reputation. And perhaps its the traditionalist in me talking, but I see lying to the voting public (what Romeny et. al. do when they mislead those who stare intently at such advertisements) as unethical as hiding thousands of dollars in your freezer.
So, it’s 3-0, in that respect. Romney really misses his target. But amidst the same-old same-old that optimistic pundits constantly reassured us we would not see, it really does seem like we’ve lost, now doesn’t it?
Taking It Out of Context
I need voice a concern that was raised after comment on my last blog post: taking quotes out of context.
Have you ever entered into a conversation at the wrong moment and totally misunderstood what was being said?
Here is my point. As students whom are trying to bring about change we need to be careful to read the whole story. We need to be conscious of the context in which things are said and read the whole thing first, than draw conclusions or arguments.
I want our blog to be seen as credible and worthy of people’s attention and hopefully criticism because that means we are doing something right.
CHEERS!
Licoln vs. Douglas ‘The Smackdown’ Pt. 1
In order to attempt to reestablish a more ‘meaningful’ political debate, in what is considered to be modern day democracy, it is necessary to reflect on a historic political debate dating all the way back to 1858. Yes, ladies and gentlemen we are speaking of the epic smack down that was Abraham Lincoln versus Stephen Douglas.
The first step to creating a good, honest political debate is to gather two or more men with opposing views on a variety of issues, or maybe only one key issue, and have them duke it out, verbally speaking, to try and almost convince each other, and the public, that one way is right, or at least better, than an opposing way. So once Lincoln and Douglas had decided to have these debates they also decided to have one in each of the nine congressional districts in Illinois. That’s right folks, nine rounds, battle to the death, for the legislature.
Luckily for our ancestors the style of a formal debate used to be much more free-flowing in which each speaker would have adequate time to say their speeches and really tell the public what their all about. Unlike today where our trained circus animals run around spewing premeditated garbage in our faces, insulting us by thinking we’re so naive as to believe these perfectly orchestrated answers are really their own. Not to say politician’s are lying, although I’m not saying their not, but they simply are not given an adequate environment where the public can truly listen to what they have to say.
Humor
I am part of the humor group so I decided to do some research. I googled “Political humor” and came up with some interesting results.
First of all, I found a hilarious clip from the John Stewart Show. It’s a spoof of “Sex and the City,” which I love, and it’s about America having a female president. I don’t know how to put the link in any other way besides to copy-and-paste it..so here it is: http://www.indecision2008.com/blog.jhtml?c=vc&videoId=103031
Another clip I thought was funny is when O’Reilly had Colbert on his show:
http://politicalhumor.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?zi=1/XJ&sdn=politicalhumor&cdn=entertainment&tm=6&f=00&su=p284.8.150.ip_&tt=9&bt=1&bts=1&zu=http%3A//youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DDJvY_RftA4I
And when O’Reilly comes on Colbert’s show:
http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=81003&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_video%3D81003&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true
I hope these links work!
Thanks,
Anna
Politics Today
I honestly can say that I really don’t have any idea about what is going on in the world today… In other words, politics really isn’t my thing. I took “Writing for Mass Comm.” last semester, and we had to read the newspaper every day, so I was caught up back then… However, as of right now I just don’t have enough time. As selfish as this sounds, I have my own life to deal with, and I’m pretty busy! Anyway, the point of this entry is just to say that I really need to get more involved with politics, especially with this important upcoming election. I say I’m a democrat, but I really don’t have any idea about what the different arguments are. All I know is that after this war and the fear that seems to grip our society today, a change is definitely necessary.
I actually met someone today, he was a customer at the restaurant where I work, and we got to chatting about politics. Being in D.C. and working in a restaurant in Dupont means that I run into a lot of political junkies. I was on my break, so I was wearing normal clothes — a t-shirt, capris, and flip flops. This is important because he actually said to me “I can look at you and tell you’re a liberal hippie — the flip flops, the hair (it was in a ponytail..how this would identify me as a liberal hippy I’m still trying to figure out…), the bag you’re carrying.” I wanted to ask..what does that even mean? Is politics getting to be something that we can judge just by looking at someone? Personally, I can’t just look at someone and decide that he or she associates with one party or the other. I wasn’t offended, I was just confused! I don’t even know exactly what I think about Democrats or Republicans! How can he?
Thanks,
Anna
Commissioning the Presidential Debate
For years, presidential debates were sponsored by the networks and the League of Women Voters. However, for every debate since 1988, including the upcoming 2008 debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates has had control of the debates.
The Commission, formed of bipartisan members, gets to decide who can debate, where the debates will be held, and who will moderate them.
According to Common Dreams, the Commission has a history of advocating for an even stronger, more defined, two-party system. When Ross Perot joined Clinton and Bush the First in the 1992, the networks experienced record-breaking audiences. While this increase in viewers is likely due to the novelty of a three party debate, at least it got more people to pay attention.
Maybe a little more novelty is what we need. The presidential debates today are boring to everyone who isn’t a political geek, and most of them already know the candidates’ positions.
Why not allow the candidates to ask each other questions, to rebut each others’ assertions, to discuss topics at length? And why not – get your tasers ready – let the audience participate? Would it be a little disorganized? Sure, but debate should be disorganized, and no important issue fits neatly into a nice, 30-second box.
Of course, this would require the Commission, so invested in maintaining the status quo, to either open its mind or step off. A number of citizen’s groups have advocated just that. Check out the Citizen’s Debate Commission (http://citizensdebate.org), which proposes a new way to run the debates.
Need more reasons why this system needs to change? NPR commentator Connie Rice has 10.
M. Appeal (Mass Appeal) 