Outrageous Comment Creats Headache for Romney

You have to see this to believe it.  Richard Mourdock, Republican Senate candidate in Indiana, is the only Senate candidate that Mitt Romney has officially endorsed and filmed an ad for.  Now Mourdock has made a statement so controversial that Romney is in a bind-- does he now repudiate his previous endorsement?  You can see further analysis of this situation here: more on Mourdock.

Red States and Blue States

A thought-provoking (if perhaps far-fetched) psychological/sociological theory as to why some states tend to be so much more liberal than others.  Worth a read!  I'm curious what you think.

Strident Anti-Obama Messages Flood Key Stone States

The article tells of derogatory ads being placed in Boynton Beach, Florida to attack President Obama. Some of the ads incorrectly accuse President Obama of being Muslim, and shows the President showing respect to the Saudi King. Also, television ads are airing that encourage people to vote for the Republican Party. The backbone of the TV ads is that socialism  shackled his native country. The hardcore Republicans are not stopping at ads to disqualify the President. Apparently, some Republicans created an offensive DVD that talks about how Obama is the love child of a Communist Loyalist, Franklin Marshall Davis, and Stanley Ann Dunham. These DVDs are to be distributed into battleground states. However, some focus groups have noted that the DVD holds dubious evidence. A viewer of the DVD was also quoted saying," But then it got to the part about the president's mother, ...... This is just something a bunch of crackpots put together." This quote shows the out-of-bounds nature of the film.

I strongly believe that some Republicans went a little over bored with the whole "disqualifying the president scheme". The ads are outrageous and obviously contorted for the benefit of the Republicans. Why would it ever be an option to show the president bowing to the Saudi King? Why would it be okay to show unnecessary information in a DVD about the President's personal life? I understand that the Republicans responsible want to support their own party by attacking the opposing party. However, I do not agree that these tactics are the way to execute the attacks. The methods are absurd.

How Bill Clinton May Have Hurt the Obama Campaign

Hey guys, this article talked about the influence our 42nd president, Bill Clinton, had on the Obama Campaign against Governor Mitt Romney. The article states that Bill Clinton strongly advised the Obama Campaign to aggressively mark Mitt Romney and his policies as severely conservative, instead of pointing out Mitt Romney's inconsistent and inauthentic. However, the article implies that the path suggested by former president Clinton might not have been the best path for the Obama Campaign to follow for this Presidential Election. One of the down falls to Bill Clinton's proposal emerged when Mitt Romney took non-conservative stances on healthcare reform, abortion and gay rights. The article also defends Bill Clinton by stating that Bill Clinton achieved success with the method he presented to the Obama Campaign. The article makes a great analogy stating that a suggestion from the best is always taken seriously.

The Obama Campaign's first approach against Governor Romney could have been more effective, because Mitt Romney has shown countless cases of showcasing inconsistent and inauthentic policies. Mitt Romney probably believes he can get away with all the changes, because Obama has not been capitalizing on Romney's inconsistency at all.

If I was in Obama's position, I would have definitely taken former President Clinton's advise. Why wouldn't I take the advice of a successful veteran. Even though, the article makes it seem as if Obama's approach could negatively affect his campaign, I do not think it is a big deal. President Obama looked sharp and aggressive with his current approach against Romney in the 2nd and 3rd Presidential Debates.

Editing Bolsters Obama’s Role in SEALs Film

Here is another article for you guys, it is from The New York Times and talks about how a documentary on the assassination of Osama Bin Laden and SEAL Team Six will be released on November 4th on National Geographic. I think this is perfect for Obama, he could not have asked for a better time for that film to be released. The assassination of Osama Bin Laden is huge for Obama, considering people who are not even politically active know he is responsible for his removal, he gains a lot from more people talking about it. This will remind everyone what he did, along with showing him in action which many people do not get to see. This may even cause a small jump in the number of people voting for him which at this point in the election where it is neck and neck may be enough. On the topic of the director saying he did not intend for it to be political stunt it is just to perfect for Obama for me to believe it. Even if he is just trying to capitalize on the increased publicity of releasing it so soon to the election, the fact that it will be on Netfilix the next day is a red flag to me. Come on that soon after initial release, I think it is rather obvious he has some sort of political motive behind that date. Which is fine it is his film and he can do with it as he please's, I just don't think he can go around and say with a straight fact he did not intend for it to be political.     

Mauled by Attack Ads, Incumbents Weigh Tighter Rules

Here is a link to the New York Times talking about attack ad's and the views that incumbents and some Republican's have on their use. I found this article pretty interesting, you always see these ad's come up on TV and I have always wondered how these parties/people could agree that this is an ok thing to do. I personally would prefer to see a candidate that didn't use this technique, it says a lot about a person's character/ability if they feel the need to discredit everyone else they are competing with. Imagine a candidate that instead of trying to push his opponents mistakes would try to find a solution to these problems that would be something. Honestly though they do not even talk about how they are going to fix the problems mentioned they just talk about how bad the other guy is. Although I think that these ad's are morally questionable, I do not think that we should stop candidates from using them, if we did it would be in violation with their right to free speech. Unless of course the things they are saying are straight up lies or they used illegal methods to obtain this info (Ralph Nader and GM when illegal wire tapping was used to record Ralph's phone)we can't dictate what they can and cannot say. So all in all I would prefer a candidate that would say it how it is and not feel the need to destroy anyone's reputation to win. Although this will most likely not have a major affect on the current election, it shows that some people do not agree with use of smear campaigns in candidates ad's and may be a point of debate following the election. For reference I am linking two ad's from Obama and Romney that use this technique if you are interested.

Ohio is coming to be a Close Call in this Election

According to recent CNN polls, the percentage of likely voters for Romney and Obama have been extremely close: 45% for Romney, 48% for Obama. The margin between the two candidates has been decreasing as each poll comes out. Ohio is obviously a major battleground state, with 18 electoral votes. It's pretty obvious as to why each candidate has spent so much time and money in Ohio. According to the favoribility polls in Ohio, both candidates are at 50% each-- how rare!

As I stated in the other article, tonight's debate is going to be crucial for the final outcome of voters- espcially in Ohio. Romney can't afford to lose Ohio under any circumstances. As of now, Romney really needs every "likely voter" to actually vote for him on election day. As for Obama, he can only hope that Romney's voters get cold feet come election day.

Foreign Policy Main Focus on Tonight's Debate

In the final Presidential debate, the main focus will be on foreign policy and how each candidate's policies differ and will be more beneficiary than the other's respective policy. However, foreign policy has been reported as voter's "last topic of interest" in several polls. However, both the Romney and Obama campaign believe that foreign policy is the topic that will make voters solidify their vote.  Romney campaign has been criticized for not showing strong foreign policy leadership, but the four deaths in Libya (obviously under President Obama) have promoted the Romney ticket. The Obama campain has received praise in ending the Iraq War and the killing of Bin Laden, but has received criticisms for the four deaths in Libya.

I think that tonight's debate topic can be beneficial to both candidates. Foreign policy will give chance for Mitt Romney to prove the American what has been deemed to be his weakest point. He has the opportunity to show his potential leadership in the oval office, instead of having rumors and stories being thrown around. On the other hand, Obama has always proven strong in foreign policy. To me, it's his "specialty." He's never had a weak moment in debating the topic, and that could negatiely affect Romney tonight. We're two weeks and a day away from a crucial election. It's crunch time.

The Opiate of Exceptionalism

The Opiate of Exceptionalism
This is an intriguing article aobut how candidates fail to truly address the serious shortcomings of the American system. Candidates act more as "cheerleaders" for the country, and to deny America's 'superiority' would be un-American and incredibly damaging politically, as we saw in Jimmy Carter. Politicians instead, while they concede that there are problems that need to be addressed, then add that they have the solution in order to keep the US on top. This type of nationalism is often counterproductive because serious, longstanding issues cannot be discussed becuase they are diminuitive to American pride and not what the public wants to hear about.

I guess to some degree, I also fall into this category of those who overzealously believe in American exceptionalism, in that I think that while the USA is not as exceptional as it should be, there are things we can do to improve this, but ultimately it is a reflection of the people. Areas like education and personal health, that have a great deal of impact on quality of life on a daily basis, are hard for government to effectively legislate in, and consequently, America cannot be exceptional without the concerted effort of a majority of people.

The War on Women

The War on Women
That in 2012, "womens' rights" is still an issue off elections is ridiculous. Not becuase it is still a societal issue even 40 years after major women's rights efforts in the second wave of feminism in the '60s and '70s, but that people believe government can and should be doing more to fix it. True equality cannot be legislated; it is earned. The opportunity and the framework for female pay equality is there, it is only a matter of women taking advantage of these opportunities that are available. This is a proccess that naturally occurs at its own rate. No one is saying women are not fundamentally equal to men. There is no concerted effort today to keep women out of higher level jobs, it is just a matter that fewer women apply for said jobs. In the same way that affirmative action does not bring equality to minority students or employees, more legislation like the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will not bring equality to women.
As far as "womens' health" as an issue, I think it is demeaning to women that our 'health' is reduced to access to contraception and reproductive services. My health as a woman certainly doesn't depend on that, and if another woman's does, then those are (in all cases except for rape) conscious lifestyle choices that she made and as such, she should be willing to take responsibility for them. With abortions, people say that no one else should tell a woman what she has a right to do with her own body. Well no one else should be able to tell the unborn child that it doesn't have a right to be alive just because it may be "inconvenient" or not what the mother wants. Even in cases of rape, killing the baby is wrong because of the sanctified right to life.

Town Hall Format Poses Risks for Obama and Romney

This article discusses how difficult it has been for both President Obama and Mr. Romney to answer questions asked directly by voters. It primarily discusses how tonight's debate could lead to serious problems for both men, who have previously shown a serious inability to give answers that satisfy the person asking the question. The primary problem is that the men are too defensive of their own policies, or will ramble on in order to try and reach whatever it is that the voter is looking to hear. For example, it discusses a time when President Obama gave a 17 minute answer to a question that even at the end left the voter unsatisfied. However, the same thing has happened to Mr. Romney, and it has happened to both men on multiple occasions. The article concludes by bringing up how likely it will be that the "winner" of this debate will be the man who can better answer the public's questions, which is certainly a fair assessment.

Springsteen Hits the Road for Obama

This article is basically about how Bruce Springsteen is once again back to rallying support for President Obama. He will join former President Bill Clinton in Parma, Ohio on Thursday for a rally/concert to convince voters to actually get out and vote. Afterwards, he will go to Ames, Iowa and do the same thing there. While this article was very short, I felt it had a lot to do with what we talked about in class about voter participation. Can a very well-known artist influence an election by endorsing a candidate? In 2004, Springsteen campaigned for Senator John Kerry (who lost) and campaigned in 2008 for President Obama. I think that both political parties are very concerned about voter turnout, and it’s cool that Springsteen going out to energize the public directly about voting.  Whether his rallying will have an effect on this year’s presidential election is yet to be determined, I think that it will have a positive effect on the Obama campaign.

Most Crucial Time for Candidates May Be After the Debate

Most Crucial Time for Candidates May Be After the Debate - "The most important time for the presidential candidates may be after Tuesday night's debate." In this article 5 aspects that both campaigns need to consider are noted. These include Twitter, The Spin Room, The Candidates, The Ads, and More Debate Prep. These factors would be valuable if there is no clear winner in Tuesday night's debate. I liked this article because it shows that social media rather than email is having a large affect and influence this year and it is very relatable to teens. Mitt Romney and President Obama were both trending topics during the Presidential debate, as were Paul Ryan and Joe Biden during the Vice Presidential debate. The other aspects make great points and I agree with author Michael Shear's ideology.

Romney Raises $170 Million to Finance Final Push

In the New York Times'article, Romney Raises $170 Million to Finance Final Push, Ashley Parker and Nicholas Confessore hilight that $170 Million was raised in September by Mitt Romney and the Republican party. Unfortunately, $170 Million was not enough money and more is needed in October. With the election getting closer and closer, Mitt Romney hopes that extra campaigning in Florida and Ohio will help him win these swing states. I am eager to see how this election will pan out as it is getting much more interesting. This election, in my opinion, may eventually become a photo finish.

The New Culture War Over Fairness
This is an article from Time Magazine about the definition of fairness, and who believes in which version. This article says that fairness is based on three things. Proportionality, Equality, and Procedural Fairness. The Republicans generally favor proportionality, while the Democrats generally favor equality, and they both claim to value procedural fairness. I think that equality, particularly in taxes is very important, while proportionality plays into that as well. The taxes you pay should be proportional to the amount of money you make. I think in theory procedural fairness sounds wonderful, but that it won't work in reality because of the many ways people have of manipulating situations to their favor.

Paul Ryan, The PhenomThis is an article from Time Magazine about Paul Ryan as the Republican vice presidential candidate. Ryan is a very competent and energetic campaigner and has been breathing new life into the GOP campaign but has been hazy on giving out the specifics for any of his plans, while aggressively attacking the Obama administration. Medicare has become a big issue of contention with the candidates. Ryan has been a great asset to the Romney campaign because he is more relatable and personable than Romney, particularly with the blue collar workers who are wary of the multimillionaire that is Romney. I think that Ryan was probably a good choice of running mate for Romney if only because he balances him out. I think that both Romney and Ryan should start telling us more specifics of their plans and stop attacking the Obama campaign quite as aggressively. Ryan's politics please the very conservative, but are not an asset with any other part of the political spectrum, so that is probably the biggest downfall in my opinion.

A Serious Debate Prep Session for Obama

Following President Obama's rather poor job at the last presidential debate during which Mr. Romney aggressively attacked the president on many of his policies, Obama took time over the past week and a half to brush up on his debating skills. He absolutely refused to be distracted in anyway, including golf courses, a Ferrari convention, and visits to local historical sites. According to close personal aides to the president, he was not practicing by cramming his head full of facts but instead by training his ability to debate directly; learning how to counter Romney's attacks on his policies and to redirect the pressure to Romney. After how well Vice-President Biden did at his debate against Paul Ryan, President Obama spent many hours reviewing the tactics Biden used. Obama plans to be not only more energetic and lively but also to focus more on foreign policy than domestic.

73,000 Political Ads Test Even a City of Excess

So, this is an article from the New York Times that states that Las Vegas set the record last week for having the most televised campaign announcements in a single year. Of the 73,000 television ads aired, there were about 98 different types and most of them were paid for with super PAC money. According to the article, as much as $3.3 billion are estimated to be spent on television advertising this year for the Presidential campaign, which is a third higher than the total amount of money spent on advertising in the 2008 election (which was about $2.5 billion). I feel that the amount of money being put into advertising for the election campaigns is astounding, and somewhat pointless. I just don’t see how bombarding television networks will influence people to want to vote for a certain candidate, especially if they already have a fixed idea in mind on who they want to vote for. Personally, I think it’s a huge waste of money and time.  In a lot of other countries, there are no television campaign advertisements, yet there is still a huge voter turnout. Maybe this type of money could be used instead to build infrastructure or create more jobs; things that could actually help Americans.

Cool Political Compass Test

Hey guys! My family and I found this site this weekend and I thought it was really neat. If you guys want to you can post your results in the comments or share on Monday! If not that's completely up to you. Enjoy!

Big Bird steps out of ‘Sesame Street’ for starring role in 2012 presidential contest

Big Bird has become a symbol in the presidential election in the past week. Romney stated in the Presidential Debate last week that he would cut federal funding of public broadcasting. While this proposal has been part of Romney's campaign plan for a while, the debate last week brought this to the attention of many Americans and brought about much debate among those Americans. President Obama and his administration took this proposal and linked it to Romney acting against a much-beloved symbol of the American population (children's show). The Obama campaign released an add pointing out Romney's plan in a negative way and emphasizing that he wants to end a beloved symbol while reduce taxes on the wealthy. Obama's actions taken with this debate have really annoyed me. To me, Romney recognizes that this cut of federal support would not save much money, but rather it shows the nation that the government will not and does not need to fund programs that can get along on their own, for specifically public broadcasting receives much financial support from individual organizations and people. While I recognize Obama's point that this funding cut will not save much money, he took this proposal and made it something it is not; an attack on a beloved character. Sesame Workshop (which supports Sesame Street and other public broadcasting shows) requested the ad be removed. To me this shows the trivial actions of President Obama in dealing with this debate specifically, his ad especially.

Shifting Reports on Libya Killings May Cost Obama

Shifting Reports on Libya Killings May Cost Obama
This is an article that talks of the different possibilities floating around the past couple of weeks about the killings in Benghazi, Libya. Initially the Obama Administration claimed that this attack was a spontaneous act that was a result of the derogatory video about the Profit Muhammad. However, more recently there is belief that the attacks may be linked to the Al Qaeda group as a terrorist attack, not simply a spontaneous attack. James R. Clapper Jr (an intelligence official of the nation) blatantly claimed on Friday that intelligence agencies "revised [their] initial assessment to reflect new information indicating that it was a deliberate and organized terrorist attack carried out by extremists." The question now that the Romney administration is touching on is the question of the accuracy of the nation's intelligence-gathering and if American personnel are receiving adequate protection. Romney has been critical of the White House administration's intelligence being scattered and has taken the recently-leaked accounts that there were around 230 requests of the officials in the embassy for higher protection that were not adequately answered.  I am also questioning the efficiency of the Obama administration and the nation's intelligence agency. I recognize that the administration faced the difficulty of understanding the attacks and the motives behind them, yet it bothers me that it had been heavily enforcing the idea that the video insulting Islam was the cause of the killings, when this premise was simply disregarded a few weeks later. 

Race tightening up in battleground Ohio

A CNN poll conducted from October 5-8, after the debate on October 3, shows that the difference between Obama and Romney have decreased to 4%, with a sampling error of 3.5% in Ohio. The previous poll that was conducted before the debate showed that Obama had a 7%-10%, lead over Romney. Other polls, like the American Research Group, also show that both the candidates are neck and neck. Mitt Romney has a 14% lead over Obama in male voters, and Obama has a 22% lead over women voters. As November 6th, is approaching, the lead for Obama has been decreasing. Both the parties have spent about $92 million on advertising in Ohio, and out that $20 million have been spent in the last two weeks. Both, the candidates are campaigning in Ohio right now, making it even more interesting. Which ever party make the most noise in the next two weeks might win Ohio, whether it be Obama or Romney. "This is the battleground of the battlegrounds."

Paul Ryan Fundraiser Bans Recording

This interesting article from the Huffington Post talks about how a fundraiser for Paul Ryan had a very interesting message on one of the signs.  The sign said no audio or video recording.  This is strange given that the fundraiser was being covered by the press anyway, but I think many people can guess why recording has been banned after Romney's slip-up last month.  It is going to be interesting seeing whether this will cause controversy or not for the Romney campaign.  Ryan raised $2.5 million for the Romney campaign with ticket prices for the fundraiser going from $2,500-$75,800.  Does anybody else find these prices disturbing or sickening?  If I am paying that much money there had better be some pretty awesome stuff at that fundraiser, not just give this politician your money so he can insult the other candidate and shake his hand.  Also included on the article page is a picture of the sign and some interesting videos if you go to the bottom.

Stakes get higher in upcoming Biden-Ryan debate

After Mitt Romney's win in last week's presidential debate, the stage is now set for a debate between Vice President Joe Biden and Mitt Romney running mate Paul Ryan. Following the presidential debate the pressure is now put on Joe Biden to really go at the Romney-Ryan campaign in an attempt to halt the momentum from Romney's victory. His opponet Ron Paul is up for one serious debate, especially with all of the experience that Mr. Biden has over the years as a great orator in his political career. Although Biden is prone to gaffes, the engery and tenacity that he will have Thursday night will be at very high levels. I believe that Joe Biden understands the expectations of him at the debate and due to his experience will overpower Ron Paul. This is wher Biden shines and it would be a real blow to the Obama campaign if he were to fail in his duty at this debate.

In Congress, A Shrinking Pool of Moderates

With the upcoming Presidential and Congressional elections a lot is uncertain. However one thing is clear that there will be many fewer moderate politicians in Congress. A combination of redistricting, retirement of fed-up law makers and large amounts of campaign spending to push these moderates out of Congress has been underway creating uphill battles for re-election. This has been occurring to centrist Democrats as well as Republicans and in turn is beginning to polar the House to a great effect. A census done by a professor at the University of Georgia and another from the University of Princeton concluded that the House has not been as polarized in over a century. This means that Congress, who failed to pass even the most mundane bills, will be even more stagnant without the the essential tie breaking power of the centrists. I believe that this is a step back for the American Political system and puts even more power into the hands of the radicals of either side making it easier for radical view points to be valid options in Congress. Not to mention Congress will be incapable of passing any legislature at all because of a lack of moderates that could help shift a bill one way and get it passed. The lack of moderates in Congress will prove to be poor decision by the radicals on either side of the spectrum.

Drop in Jobless Figure Gives Jolt to Race

Here is an article from the New York Times about unemployment rate in the month of September. In the month of September the unemployment rate dropped to the lowest since the month President Obama took office, from 8.1% to 7.8%. The author talks about the reactions of Mitt Romney to the unemployment rate, saying that the unemployment rate dropped because "millions of Americans had given up looking for work." When you look at that you may think that it's true. But, their were two recent surveys on job report, that show the unemployment rate decreased because their was a growth in the number of jobs, but not because millions of people quit searching for a job. Also, the author states that there were no polls done so far that show that there was no significant change in economics or politics, which it probably won't. I think the drop in unemployment rate, will have minor effect for right now but, it won't be a major factor in November. This will probably re energize President Obama giving him a little confidence, from his defeat in the debate on October, 3. What do you guys thinks?

Romney's Missing Foreign Policy

Here you guys go.  This is an Op-Ed article from the New York Times talking about how Mitt Romney needs to capitalize on foreign policies.  The article references political hotbeds such as Syria Libya, and Egypt.  To start however, the author says that we need to understand how America has changed since 2001 with the war on terrorism and the uprising of political unrest around the Middle East.  Interestingly enough though, the author never really mentions Bush that much even though she referenced a timeline that included both of his presidential terms.  The author brings up bitter sentiments that I am sure most Americans (myself included) feel such as a resentment of America from other nations for wars and police actions despite America's large involvements and casualties and expenditures in these conflicts.  Among other things, a key point I found interesting was Obama's mix and matched policies involving the Middle East. How does he support the rebels in Libya to overthrow a tyrant, yet merely watching while Syria undergoes a very bloody revolution that claims innocent lives? Also highlighted are how outspoken Obama is against Iran yet he legitimizes the country's regime and hands out billions of dollars in debt forgiveness to Egypt when their rights are still being suppressed in the street.  I find the conflicts in Syria and Libya confusing, why isn't Obama offering aid? Is it more complicated than we know? As for Iran I would rather avoid dealing with them right now because I honestly think that is the best course of action given the economic state of everything in the world and our laundry list of other problems.  As for Egypt I honestly do not know why Obama is handing out debt forgiveness...I mean in case anyone hasn't noticed we aren't doing so well ourselves in terms of debt as a country.  Meanwhile I have other information that suggests Romney wants to step up involvement in Syria.  The author believes Romney is onto a good foreign policy, though it just isn't refined.  I would have to disagree considering Romney's policy has similarities with Obama's particularly on Iran and Romney also wants to take Israel which is one of the country's biggest foreign policies and deal with it later?  Sorry I am not buying it. Considering the fact that many foreign countries also support Obama I would have to say Obama still has this edge, and even though this election seems to be centered more around the economy and jobs.  Foreign Policy still makes a difference mostly because America does not want another war anytime soon.

Debate Fact-Checking

Here is the NYT debate preview-- claims both men are likely to make during the first debate, and the truth behind them.

Best SNL Debate Parodies

No Voter ID Law for PA... for Now

Pennsylvania will not require voters to show a photo ID in order to cast a ballot in this November's election.

The South's Enduring Conservatism

The South's Enduring Conservatism

A fascinating discussion from the NY Times Editorial pages about why the South remains the most staunchly conservative region in the country.  Directly relevant to some of our discussions about why the South has shifted from being solidly Democratic to the most reliably Republican base of support.

Profile of Mitt Romney

Profile of Mitt Romney
Here is a lengthy profile of Mitt Romney, focusing on his time as Governor of Massachusetts, that appears in this week's New York Times Magazine.