Please pick someone to respond to from Post 5. Some suggestions I have are:
1. respond to someone who did not write about the same question you did,
2. respond to someone with whom you disagree with or partially disagree with.
Too many of you last quarter wrote responses to each other that were vague and didn't offer any direct engagement with the other person's post or argument. I think it might be easier for you to have direct response to someone else's post if you disagreed with them. So please try that and see if that makes it easier for you to interact with each other's arguments.
I look forward to reading what you have to say.
Please post on 11/21 by 2nd period that day or your post will be late.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
34 comments:
This is in response to Lauren’s post, since it doesn’t have to do with the outcomes of the election like my post did and also I feel that she has made several good points that I would like to comment on.
First off, I would like to point out that while Proposition 8 was indeed passed, it was by a slim margin; 52% is no landslide, so I don’t think all hope is lost for homosexual couples in California. That’s not to say that I agree with passing Proposition 8, because I don’t; I believe any couple in love should be able to marry, especially since any particular marriage won’t even directly affect anyone who’s against it. People who do not support gay marriage may claim that it does affect them in a psychological or spiritual way, but to that I say live and let live; you won’t go to hell for accepting someone else’s lifestyle. We live among many people with different religions and beliefs today without trying to outlaw them. To put that another way, I mean that I have trouble understanding why there are some people who are totally against gay marriage when it does not even touch their personal lives. I just can’t see how it affects those groups, so I don’t understand why they care. Yes, it may offend some people, but doesn’t the KKK offend people as well? They are completely allowed by law to carry on with their activities as long as they aren’t violent, so why should they get special rights and not other groups? (And by that I mean more than just homosexual couples.)
In response to Lauren’s comment about how previously mistreated groups voted against gay rights in this situation, I think I have an idea about why that might have happened: Many young voters went to the polls for the first time this election. Many of them are so young that, even of those groups who were previously mistreated, none of them actually experienced those troubled times. People who were activists in the fifties and sixties are now about sixty-five to fifty-five years old or so, and we all know that older people have typically had a higher voter turnout. So the young voters weren’t passionate about supporting another mistreated group’s plight because they themselves never experienced such treatment. But, according to CNN politics, the voter turnout didn’t actually increase by that much, probably because there was less Republican turnout, but more Democrats to take their place (1). Why, then, didn’t typically liberal homosexual couples triumph? Also, many of those people who won rights in the late twentieth century have now aged enough to have crossed into the demographic of being morally conservative; therefore, many of those who originally supported new rights are now old and are not as likely to support the marriage, etcetera, of homosexual couples. Or they were raised in a time when that was just socially unacceptable, and they still believe that to be true.
I also think that women make up a very large part of society (more than half.) I don’t think that just being a woman qualifies anyone to be like, “Oh, okay, I’m grateful for my rights, now I’ll support those of others.” That would make a HUGE difference if every woman believed in gay rights just because a woman is a woman. While it is true that women typically pay more attention to moral issues in elections, it does not mean that they will always agree on those issues, which is what I think has happened here. Sarah Palin is living proof that the Religious Right still exists, and I think that maybe the passing of gay rights in general may have alerted many people against them, not just women, to fight back in the polls.
As for “disintegrating the traditional family structure,” I think that’s ridiculous. Gallup polls said that approximately 10% of Americans are homosexual, while most Americans polled thought that 20% of Americans were gay (2.) I think that this overestimation plays into the fear of the traditional family structure’s demise. Also, I think that the fact that whether parents are of the same sex or not is becoming less relevant as our country goes forward in time. Kids who have parents of the same sex don’t necessarily turn out gay themselves, but they do have a much higher acceptance of homosexuals whether they themselves are of that persuasion or not. I think it’s very important that the rest of the population learns that tolerance. Lauren makes a strong point when she says homosexuals will not be given equal respect until they achieve equal rights; that is unfortunately how the American system has proved itself to function time after time in our history.
I think that the more rights given to mistreated groups, the better we are in the eyes of the rest of the world. The United States looked ridiculous next to Europe during the Antebellum period because slavery within our country was still going strong. How will we look, then, to other countries who have accepted the fact that homosexuality exists and won’t go away in spite of more than two thousand years of attempts to stifle it? I think America is afraid of change because some people don’t know what will happen if they let go of something many people have been fighting against for centuries. But change has already come in many different forms to our country since its beginning, and much of it has been good. So with this pattern in mind, how much harm can accepting a certain group of people do?
People have been homosexual ever since there have been people; it is clearly not possible to just stamp this out by ignoring it or making it socially unacceptable. Everyone doesn’t have to support homosexuality; after all, there are still racists and sexists among us. All America needs to learn is tolerance. Women are still here because they succeeded. African Americans are still here because they succeeded. I can’t foresee homosexuals going anywhere, either. America will learn when we give everyone a chance who deserves one.
…Sorry for such a long post, Lauren asked a lot of questions I wanted to try and answer, plus this is my only homework for tonight : )
I have to disagree with AJ’s claim that Sarah Palin didn’t hurt the McCain campaign. I also disagree with people’s argument that while her celebrity status towards the end of the race hindered his campaign, she was a positive asset at the beginning because of her relatable status. I disagree with this claim because I believe that McCain’s selection of her as his running mate symbolized his loss of the chance to become our next president. Palin summarized all of the things McCain should not have played up in his election. Americans did not want another “old maverick” in the White House. One of the major reasons Obama won was because of his promise for change, and by McCain choosing Palin he took a step backwards instead of forward. His reasons for choosing her tie into the reason he lost and many people’s reason why they did not vote for him. John McCain chose Sarah Palin because he wanted to keep the votes of the very conservative evangelicals (1). He should not have been focused on their vote so intently, but rather kept his attention on the vote of the moderate republicans (3). If he would have stolen Obama’s slogan for change, he could have competed evenly with him by being able to use past action he took like standing up for the climate and the ceasing of torturing. If he would have continued to play up his ability to dissent from popular opinion and stand on his own with major issues like immigration and fiscal federalism, then he would have had a much better chance at a victory (2). The choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate symbolized John McCain’s movement towards ambiguity and empty promises, which was the last thing Americans wanted to hear with our economic crises. While I do not think that Sarah Palin was the sole destruction of McCain’s campaign, her election was the decisive moment that McCain began to move in the wrong direction. She was also a negative asset to his campaign towards the end because of all the attention she had received as being inexperience and unintelligent (2). McCain’s old age forced people to imagine her running our country, and I don’t think that put anyone at ease.
1)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702406.html
2)http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0908/13062.html
3)http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/sarah-palin/24121/did-sarah-palin-lose-the-election-for-mccain/
This is in response to Jen’s post about her advice for Obama…
First of all, I think we both can see that Obama faces some daunting challenges. We are at war, in the midst of a financial crisis, and favorable opinions of the US from foreign countries are decreasing (1). No matter which issue Obama decides to pursue first, he will face great obstacles. I agree with you that the financial crisis is the most important issue currently and that it would be wise of Obama to tackle this first. Many people feel that “Obama was elected because the 2008 presidential election was a referendum on George W Bush's two disastrous terms” (2). Voters placed the economy as their number one priority as you noted in the Gallup poll results (3). It would anger many Americans if he didn’t take on the issue that is weighing on their minds.
Obama already seems to be taking action, discussing the passing of a new $100 billion dollar stimulus package (4). The package would help pay for public works projects, aid to cities and states, and unemployment, food stamp and heating benefits (4). This package may help alleviate some of the concerns that you refer to as not immediate. In your post you mention that 70% of people feel that they will be better off economically after his first term. I disagree. While I may seem a little pessimistic, I simply do not believe that four years will be enough time for people to recover from immense losses that they have faced. I think that prices and wages will probably improve nominally, but the real value will not increase greatly. The two parties are also advocating different solutions. “Democrats are pushing government spending to boost state aid and food stamps, extend unemployment benefits and fund infrastructure projects. A leading Republican proposal pushes for greater tax relief for businesses and individuals and energy reform measures” (5).
I sincerely hope that the two parties can work together, but as made evident by the presidential debates, Republicans and Democrats feel quite differently about the economy and taxes. Your suggestion of Obama focusing on the economy for the first six months and then shifting to something like the war seems like a good idea, only a little improbable. It is to hard to quantify the amount of time that will need to be spent rescuing our finances. Obama is going to need to learn quite quickly how to juggle many pressing concerns at once if he is to be successful.
1. http://pewglobal.org/reports/display.php?ReportID=252
2. http://www.prospect-magazine.co.uk/article_details.php?id=10503
3. http://pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm
4. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/us/politics/06elect.html
5. http://money.cnn.com/2008/11/18/news/economy/stimulus_potleffects_delay/index.htm
What suggestions do you have for the McCain campaign? What could his campaign have done better?
In response to Kassie, I agree that there were a lot of things in McCain’s campaign that contributed to his downfall. However, I disagree that Sarah Palin was the one who tied McCain with Bush. While I do think Sarah Palin was a negative asset to McCain’s campaign, I think McCain’s own history of voting with Bush on at least 90% of issues was something he couldn’t deny and made it difficult for the public to believe that he was really the maverick he claimed to be (2). The fact that Bush was such an unpopular Republican would have made 2008 a difficult election year for anybody running on the Republican ticket (1), especially someone whose voting record was so similar to that of Bush. To make the race easier though I do think McCain should have chosen a different running-mate, like Pawlenty or Romney, who were also in the running (1). A more moderate and experienced candidate would have drawn more swing voters. Pawlently is a well- liked guy across the Midwest, and I think if he had been chosen he would have handled interviews better and gained votes from the Midwest that Palin obviously did not. Palin was a choice that may have appeared to the public a desperate attempt to gain votes, and in fact she discouraged them with her out-of-control appearance and lack of experience (3). In the future, I would suggest to McCain to pick a candidate with similar views to him that has experience and popularity among people of both parties.
Also, while you said McCain should have tried harder to appeal to young people, I think that would have been a very hard group to capture no matter how hard he tried. This is because since he is in fact much older than Barack Obama, teens and young adults would probably find it hard to relate to him more than Obama anyways. The personality and charisma of Obama is what drew the younger crowd to him (3) and in my opinion, I don’t think there are any campaign techniques that would change that.
In addition, I think it was hard for voters to commit to McCain when neither he nor Palin had a clear plan in debates and interviews for anything. Like Tim Pawlenty said, “drill baby drill” by itself is not an energy policy (1). The lack of directness in a situation where our economy is going downhill as quickly as it is may have made people wary of how reliable McCain actually is. He seemed uncertain about what to do about the economy and almost as if he didn’t care (3). Also, the fact that our country is in the midst of a financial crisis and wars that people are lacking support for made a campaign for fresh change sound appealing. McCain, on the other hand, ran an unappealing campaign filled with negative ads in an effort to bash Obama (3). When our country is headed in a negative direction, people don’t want to hear negative ads. Next time, I would advise McCain to stick to a positive and inspiring campaign that draws voters to him, not away from his opponent
1.) http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/articles/2008/11/14/governors_assail_failed_campaign/?page=2
2.) http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20081117/OPINION01/811170323/1008
3.) http://www.newsweek.com/id/167561
RESPONSE POST 5
In Response to Anthony:
One of Anthony’s sources, a paper from Princeton, said that people vote split ticket on purpose and for the sole reason of balancing the parties (1). I disagree with this statement, because I think that most people realize that by split ticket voting they will decrease the productivity of the government due to policy gridlock. I’m definitely not saying that split ticket voting is wrong, but I just don’t think that people do it to allow for equality of each party. I don’t think that crosses through people’s minds while voting. I believe that the educated voters understand the consequences of split ticket voting, so they wouldn’t do it in purpose if they want to see anything get done in the government. The paper may be right, some people may split ticket vote for that reason, but I think that the majority of voters do it for a different reason.
I think that most split ticket voters do it because they don’t associate themselves with one party or the other. Studies show that there has been a dramatic decrease in party identification over the years (2). The number of moderates has been growing every year, and therefore parties are losing support. It is very common now for people to vote for a candidate rather than a party. I think this was the case in the presidential election. I know of a lot of Republicans that chose to vote for Obama. For my political participation paper, I volunteered to make phone calls asking people who they are planning to vote for. I got a large number of people who planned to vote for all Republicans and then Obama for president. I was pretty surprised at the number of people who were split ticket voting, but I guess it makes sense because moderates are becoming more common (2).
Anthony said that split ticket voting is bad because it harms the two party system. I would have to disagree that it is necessarily a bad thing. I know this is sort of getting off on a new topic, but I think that we could use a multi-party system. Because there are so many moderates in our country now, they need a party that they can more closely relate to and agree with. People like options, and I think that split ticket voting shows this (3). The fact that Minnesota voted for the Democratic presidential candidate and the Republican candidates for everything else shows that because split ticket voting and a divided government is becoming popular, it might be time to move towards a multi party system to try and meet the needs of all the moderates out there.
1) http://www.princeton.edu/~csdp/events/pdfs/seminars/Carmines092806.pdf
2) http://www.essex.ac.uk/bes/bookfiles/Sanders-ch06.pdf
3) http://www.debate.com/debates/Two-Party-System-vs.-Multi-Party-System/1/
This is in response to Megan’s post.
I agree with your statement that people are proclaiming to want to embrace change that they are still uncertain whether to give full control to the Democrat Party, in which they have the majority seats in Congress and the new President-elect is a Democrat as well. Obama may have won the popular vote of Minnesotans as the presidential nominee, the people still vote for Republicans for the in-state positions. Minnesota is a very big split ticket voters state. The voters mostly consider themselves Democrats but the problem is that they don’t trust the Democratic party to spend tax revenues wisely and frugally. (1) So while they may vote for a rockstar Democratic candidate, Barack Obama, Amy Klobuchar, Paul Rosenthal, Mike Obermueller, they do not yet consider themselves Democrats with a capital D, and are unwilling to vote straight ticket Democrat even in a wave election like 2006 and 2008 were. (1) That was probably the reason why even though Michele Bachmann won the race in her district against Al Tinklenberg the race was fairly close and it can be seen that voters are unsure on which candidate to choose since she won narrowly with a 3 point lead. (2) Also the split ticket voting can be seen in the Senate race, Norm Colman, the Republican has a vote of 1,211,565 votes while Franken has a 1,211,359 votes, both candidate with a 42% vote. I think Minnesota sees that a Democrat candidate should be the President-elect because they want to see more change and action take from that party on the issues for the nation, such as the economic issues, and the War in Iraq. They see that a Republican should be more in control of the state and local levels because they fear of a single party dominating all three levels of government. The split ticket voting’s another reason is that it provides another system of checks and balances between the three level of government never having one dominate over the other. Also that the people agree more Republican’s stand on in state issues of state and local taxes.
Although we seem to be ready for a new change for the nation we are still hesitant about this new change, having two different parties on the levels of government can ensure of us that there is a backup plan if our hopes were wrong. It will be interesting to see what Minnesota picked for their open Senate seat.
(1)http://www.mncampaignreport.com/diary/2153/can-the-dfl-get-to-90-in-the-house
(2)http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/results/states/minnesota.html
In response to Zhang:
I have too much to say about Prop 8 to expand my focus.
Melinda, I thought the sources you used to articulate the viewpoints on the issues were excellent, although I was confused about the views in the alternet.org article (they name-called each side?). Like you, I am deeply disturbed that same-sex couples scolded African Americans for their loss on Proposition 8 (2, 3). One, because it is not necessarily African Americans’ doing, and two, because they aren’t having their rights infringed on like the African Americans have in the past. I thought it was particularly interesting that the raw polling data is conflicting and that Vote No on Prop 8 was just out-campaigned by Protect Marriage (3). I thought the websites of both groups articulated their points well. I believe Protect Marriage is being misleading when it says voting for Prop 8 “protects our children from being taught in public schools that “same-sex marriage” is the same as traditional marriage, and prevents other consequences to Californians who will be forced to not just be tolerant of gay lifestyles, but face mandatory compliance regardless of their personal beliefs” (8). No On Prop 8 clearly pointed out that Prop 8 had nothing to do with education, church, or the ability to be sued about beliefs (6) and that was the same idea that I got from the state website (5). But these could be examples of how Protect Marriage won.
I also found it interesting that the politicians would not take a clear stance on the issue (1). As was pointed out, Obama may not support gay marriage but he expressly opposes a ban, yet the proponents of Prop 8 used him for support anyway (3). I also noticed from my checking that at least on the county map, it appears like people voted for Obama in places where they voted against Prop 8, by similar margins, while voting for Prop 8 in both Obama and McCain counties. But McCain counties were more heavily in favor of Prop 8 (5).
Californian’s already voted for a measure like Prop 8 in 2000 when 61% of them voted for Prop 22 which also defined marriage as between a man and a woman and that no other kind is valid or allowed to be processed in California. This was only overturned in May 2008 by the California Supreme Court (7). Prop 8 essentially re-passed Prop 22 over the Court. Part of the argument by Protect Marriage was that it was just activist judges who did the overturning and that the word of Californians should be restored to law (8). This means of course that it could be overturned again but it also means that the will of the people is strong and that even though the Court is again hearing the case, they are less likely to overturn the Proposition (4). It appears that the same-sex couple may be able to protect their already valid marriages from before Prop 8 in the Court, but that has yet to be settled (4).
As for my opinion, I do believe that sexual orientation should be a protected status. I think it is clear that Proposition 8 and any other law that takes away their rights to marriage, or adoption or whatever, is not supporting any compelling government interest. There is no reason to believe that same-sex couples endanger any other marriages or society in general. I think marriage is only so important, but at the same time I don’t believe that religion or straight couples can own that right. If they can have it, and have it be a legally binding contract with benefits, it should be deemed a fundamental right that all citizens may have, protected by the Constitution in the 14th Amendment. I think that if they want to give the tax rights and things to same-sex couples, that’s great. But civil unions are clearly not marriage and the Supreme Court ruled in Brown vs. Board of Education and other cases that separate is inherently unequal. Much like segregation by race fosters feelings of inferiority, segregation of marriage by sexual orientation does the same. That said, maybe the Supreme Court of the U.S. has to rule on the issue. The Bill of Rights was intended to protect the rights of the minority from the majority (and vice versa), and I think that this is a clear case of the majority infringing on the rights of the minority.
I am purposely separating Obama’s election from the same-sex marriage issue and gay rights because I believe they are wholly unique.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.samesexmarriage.html
(2) http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-me-prop816-2008nov16,0,1953656,full.story
(3) http://www.alternet.org/rights/106178/why_the_prop_8_gay_marriage_ban_won/
(4) http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/20/MNJC147QAJ.DTL&tsp=1
(5) http://vote.sos.ca.gov/Returns/props/map190000000008.htm
(6) http://www.noonprop8.com/
(7) http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/analysis/prop8-analysis.htm
(8) http://www.protectmarriage.com/about
This is in response to Savann’s post about what Obama should accomplish within his first 6 months or year in office. I agree with her that he needs to take the wars into consideration as a top priority, but I believe that he should make the economy his absolute first goal. Many polls are proving that a majority of Americans want Obama to focus on the economy first, since there are so many families struggling to make ends meet (1). Analysts are saying that getting Congress to approve the tax cuts that he promoted during his campaign would be a major first step (1). He just has to be careful because if he gets into a battle with Congress, his ideas for change might slow down immensely. However, if he can get the tax cuts started, his momentum will carry over into other important issues like the war and healthcare (1).
Hopefully Obama will focus first on the economy because there are so many Americans that are relying on his plan to make it, and a majority of people want that to be his first priority. However, another article I found said that Obama wants to first focus on pulling troops out of the war, and then on affordable health care coverage, but it did not mention economy anywhere (2). I agree that those are important issues and that they need to come immediately after the economy plan sets into action, but Americans are in need of a better economy as soon as possible. Another article I read agrees with me, CFR President Richard N. Haass says that the drop in the price of oil has made "significant economic problems for the Iranian government. It means the financial sanctions are having a lot more traction, and it's possible that this will create an environment in which a new diplomatic initiative could have some promise." This suggests that if we start to fix the economy, the issues with the war might start to fall into place and we might actually get somewhere (3). Also, the climate and energy solutions will not be ready by his inauguration, and neither will plans for taking out the troops (3). So starting at home with the economy and financial issues will be the best way to start off strong (3). Obama’s campaign set very high expectations for him and Americans are expecting him to hit the ground running like he has promised (3). If he starts with change close to home, that can take effect the quickest, it will please the citizens.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/06/obama.priorities/index.html
(2)http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/obamas_priorities_for_first_10.html
(3) http://www.cfr.org/publication/17693/
In Response to EmBerg, and what she thought an Obama victory would mean for the US and why he won.
I agree that Obama's victory is a sure change from the Bush administration. Bush has been trying to make last minute policy changes, including a proposal to eliminate the need for government scientists to determine whether infrastructure projects will harm endangered species (1). There is also a proposal to protect health workers who refuse to assist in abortions or medical procedures that they don't agree with on religious grounds (1). Bush is trying to pass these “midnight regulations” before Obama is inaugurated into office because he knows these policies would not be passed under Obama's administration (1). A conservative era might truly be coming to its end. I think the people you quote, who believe Obama is the end of Republican policy are right, their expectations are high but they believe that the status quo is bad right now and a product of failed Republican policies. The Republicans have claimed that we over-regulate businesses, but they passed a bail-out plan that would increase business regulation. The auto-industry has also been falling into bankruptcy, and they have ignored all congressional calls to make their cars more fuel-efficient, now they are losing the competition to foreign cars with higher mpg (2). This is not over-regulation, not when businesses can ignore the regulations that are passed by government. You also say that tax cuts and creating new programs will increase our national debt, but the Bush administration doubled our national debt in 8 years. Also Obama will cut taxes for those for middle class families making less than $200,000 a year, while increasing taxes on the wealthy (3).
I think that our foreign policy has drastically changed with our change in presidents. People around the world are hopeful, and our perception internationally has improved just from electing Obama (4). Our foreign policy and relations have improved just from assuring the world that Republican politics won't dominate our foreign policy any longer (4). Middle eastern countries aren't particularly expecting anything from Obama's appointment to office, but they do understand that the rest of the world is backing Obama (4). Iran understands this outpouring of support for Obama and America from the international community and conflict between our nations on that basis is not a wise conclusion. If Obama can change how we think about nations like Iran and Cuba, they no longer threaten us with the notions of nuclear and terrorist threat, and diplomacy can solve our foreign conflicts (4).
I do agree that it was predictable that we voted for Obama in the current economic crisis. Democrats are closely associated with positive economic growth and a stable economy, like FDR and the new deal or the Clinton administration and how he balanced the budget.
I also agree that most Americans are very frustrated with the Republicans and the results of the last 8 years of the Bush administration's policies. That was a somewhat important factor in why Obama won, but I also think that there are several other factors in why people voted for Obama. They really were looking for change. We still aren't willing to pay for new programs or to improve education and healthcare, but we genuinely want to change our nation and make it a better place for ourselves and others. They want Obama to bring this change for them.
Concerning your sources, I don't think that using Obama's campaign website as a source is accurate. The entire point of a campaign website is to gain support for your candidate and make him/her look as appealing as possible. That allows for bias, independent news sources are held to the standard of being non-partisan so they can get readers from both sides of the political spectrum.
I think that even if you don't agree with Obama politically, that should understand the significance of the hope he has been able to inspire. The hope that we can work towards change, and that tomorrow will be better. The same hope he inspired in Americans and people all over the world.
(1)http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/3491500/Bush-and-Obama-administrations-clash-over-policy.html
(2)http://www.forbes.com/business/2008/11/18/cars-automakers-detroit-biz-man-cz_jf_1118flint.html
(3)http://www.accountingweb.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=106468&d=883&h=884&f=882&dateformat=%o%20%B%20%Y
(4)http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/19/obama.world.image/?iref=mpstoryview
In response to Dan’s post:
First of all, I completely disagree with your claim that Obama’s tax plan is “extremely inadequate.” Tax cuts are not going to solve the economic crisis. You say that Obama’s plan will not “affect the willingness of American consumers to spend money,” Americans keeping their wallets closed is not the reason for this economic recession (2). It seems to make sense that more consumption would lead to higher demand and production, which would in turn create more jobs. In theory this sounds right, however in actual practice it wouldn’t fix the recession (2). Obama’s tax cuts are substantial enough to help low income families put some money away and save. The $1,042 that you referred to may not get Americans to spend more, but it will help them stay on track and even put some money in the bank (1). In comparison to McCain’s plan, which would only cut taxes for the same income group by $319, Obama’s plan is substantial and will help lower income families. Also, any larger tax cuts (such as the one McCain had proposed for higher income families) would do the opposite of help the economy (1). Even though troop withdrawal is a priority, the war is going to continue draining America’s bank account for at least several months to come. Extreme tax cuts will raise the federal deficit and prevent any beneficial social programs from being formed to help lower income families (3). By raising taxes for the wealthy, keeping them the same for median income, and slightly lowering them for the lower income group, Obama will balance the federal deficit. Of course, this tax strategy will have to come with lower federal government spending on the war and other unnecessary programs; it is a start to getting the economy back on track (3). Small business growth is important like you had talked about; however once again I do not agree that Obama’s tax plan will hinder this growth. Small businesses are just as important as large production factories, domestication of production will be the key to helping small and large businesses alike (4). You can cut taxes for entrepreneurs all you like, it may help their business grow but it is not going to pull America out of the recession. Obama’s plan will help to spread the wealth and put all American workers on a relatively equal playing field when it comes to income versus taxes. I do agree with you about Obama’s priority of ending the wars America currently faces. I have no doubt that he will use diplomatic relations and cooperation with middle eastern leaders to solve the conflicts while still helping to stabilize the young governments.
(1) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/06/09/ST2008060900950.html
(2) http://www.nextwave.org/economy/saving-the-economy-do-we-spend-or-save/
(3) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/ambroseevans_pritchard/3387659/Obama-will-bring-step-change-to-US-economic-policy.html
(4) http://www.fpc.state.gov/documents/organization/7962.pdf
Lauren the wise….
I both agree and disagree with you at the same time. Firstly, I agree with you that it is unfair to oppress the gay and lesbian community. Essentially, I agree with your main argument that the gay marriage barriers in the majority of the states show the narrow-mindedness of the United States (7). However, I disagree with you that it is the fault of those with a history of being oppressed (women and African Americans) that gay marriage faces so many obstacles.
In California, black clergy of two different churches spoke out both for and against Proposition 8 (8). One of their arguments for opposing Proposition 8 was that African Americans have been discriminated against in the past and shouldn’t be taking rights away from others (8). One of the clergy, Reverend Eric Lee said, “Same-gender marriage is a civil rights issue.” (8). This argument is very similar to that used by NOW (5). On NOW’s website, it says it’s mission is “to promote equality for women- all women”, showing that they too are treating gay and lesbian rights as a civil right issue (5). NOW has been fighting for lesbian rights for more than 30 years (5). I think this brings more significance to the cases as they are being considered more as a civil rights issue instead of a moral issue.
I also disagree that hope for gay and lesbian rights is almost extinguished. President-elect Barack Obama supported gay rights as a senator in Illinois and sponsored legislation that would ban discrimination based on sexual orientation (1). When the California Supreme Court supported a domestic-partnership law (before Proposition 8) giving same sex couples “virtually all of the legal rights and responsibilities accorded married couples under California law” Obama said he “respects the decision of the California Supreme Court” (2). Also, the California Supreme Court suggested that it will take up the question of the constitutionality of Proposition 8 (3). The court will consider if same sex couples are being denied equal protection under the state constitution, which could serve as an example for other states (3). Also, this will be the first case challenging an amendment banning same-sex marriage in a state where the marriages had been legal (3). Also with Democrats now holding the power, much more liberal policies are likely to be made. In a survey asking which was closest to their beliefs on the issue of gay and lesbian rights 42% of Democrats believed in full marriage rights while only 12% of Republicans did (4). Therefore, I believe there is still room for progressive reform on this issue.
While Proposition 8 was a major step back for the gay and lesbian community, I don’t think all hope is gone. I honestly think they are on the brink of gaining more rights now.
1. http://lesbianlife.about.com/od/lesbianactivism/p/BarackObama.htm
2. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/05/23/opinion/main4124256.shtml
3. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/20/us/20marriage.html?bl&ex=122733000 0&en=cb254b577ccf4790&ei=5087%0A
4. http://www.pollingreport.com/civil.htm
5. http://www.now.org/issues/lgbi/marr-rep.html
7. http://marriage.about.com/cs/marriagelicenses/a/samesexcomp.htm
8. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-blackvote22-2008oct22,0,895684.story
Just a little FYI: (I know the number 6 is missing, I just decided I didn’t want to use that source anymore but didn’t want to have to renumber everything in my response.)
I am responding to Molly’s post on advice to give to Obama as he takes the presidency in such an adverse atmosphere. I think that the main advice I would give him is similar to Molly’s, in that he has to prioritize his goals and not try to accomplish them all at once. I agree with the Molly’s first priority as well: the economy. Right now our economy is facing a severe recession, and we are having to bailout banks and now we are looking at bailing out the auto industries. I think that this poses the greatest threat to our country right now, and needs to be taken care of before we can move on to other projects. I don’t think that he can accomplish any more things until he fixes the economy. Also, the economic crisis is the top things that voters were voting for him for in the election, so I think it should be his priority to do what the people deem most important first. Although I disagree with his plan for a 50 billion dollar stimulus because of past stimulus failures, it could still work (1). The same goes for tax cuts to the middle class, because although it will increase their spending, I’m not sure how well it will work in the long run (3). But no matter what he has to focus on fixing the economy first.
I disagree with Molly’s second priority though. I don’t think that the war should be second on the list. I think that the energy crisis should be solved before getting out of the Middle East, because then we will be completely independent from them and won’t have to deal with problems if we pull out. We can get our own energy and not be dependent on them. So when we pull out, we really are pulling out. I also think that it poses a greater threat to our country if we don’t get energy independence, and that the war, although eating up a lot of our budget, isn’t as big in terms of costs to our country, especially in the long run (2). I think that once we get a stable economy, energy should be Obama’s second priority.
Sources:
1) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1812964
2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/07/15/obama.iraq/index
3) http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
Kyle: (why Obama won question..)
Kyle, what I find most interesting about your post is the fact that you focus so strongly on the change that is going to ensue as a result of Barack Obama’s election to the presidency. Although I agree that Obama will indeed steer America towards a bit more of a liberal course, I feel that many of the changes will not be as grand as most of the United States is imagining. According to the latest Rasmussen poll, only 25 percent of voters describe themselves as "liberal." And based on these same surveys, 67% of America considers Obama to be liberal (1). There is a gap between the “what” and the “how” in the elections and vagueness has been a big issue this campaign. Yes, everyone has rallied around the idea of change, but I think the crux of the issue is this: what were the changes they rallied around? (1). Obama, although he may be liberal-minded, is running a country that leans to the right. Democratic presidents like FDR, John Kennedy, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton all ended up moving farther right then they ever thought they would (2). If Obama wins, he is probably going to face the same fact: governing a nation that is more conservative than liberal purely by instinct (2). The real facts are revealed by polls like a Newsweek one that revealed: nearly twice as many people call themselves conservatives as liberals, and the fact that the Republicans have dominated in presidential politics for the last 40 years (2). Obama understood this, and appealed to America’s conservatism by taking an opposing stance to gay marriage, focusing strongly on tax cuts, God, and veteran’s benefits (2). This is not to deny America’s greater openness to liberal policies. But when compared to the policies of European countries (especially in our foreign policy) America remains a considerably conservative nation, and will most likely continue to do so (2).
1.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/06/obamas_change_what_when_how.html
2. http://www.newsweek.com/id/164656
In response to Kyle:
I do agree with the fact we will see many changes to the way our system currently works. The Obama administration will be dealing with many problems that the US faces. One being the Iraq war - which he plans to withdraw troops within 16 months (1). This will be done through a phase-out plan which in theory will remove all troops by summer of 2010 (1). Obama also plans to address healthcare. Obama's plan involves expanding Medicaid eligibility to cover more uninsured people (2). Obama's health care to-do list include creating a national exchange so uninsured people can buy insurance, offering subsidies to help low-income people and small businesses defray the cost of buying insurance and taxing larger companies that refuse to provide insurance for employees (2). Large education and economy reforms will also be present. Just like any new administration - there will be significant changes.
I think Kyle brought up a really good point about voter turn out. Voters are more likely to vote if they are unhappy (3). Polls showed that the Bush Administration had extremely low ratings. In the past few months, Bush's favorability ratings have dropped considerably. According to PollingReport.com; he the last poll showed 11% very positive, and 45% very negative (4). Since more Americans fall into the negative category, they are more likely to vote Democratic. Also, because of the economic situation; Obama had more appeal to working class voters which I believe, like Kyle, helped him win the presidency.
(1)www.barackobama.com/issues
(2)https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=3517027344084016002&postID=1627863958401189501&isPopup=true
(3)Government in America
(4)http://pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm
In response to Oscar-
I think you made some good points, but they lacked any support, and didn’t flow well together. I do believe Obama will make change, and It is a good thing that the young voters were awakened. I am slightly taken aback at the comment, “I believe this will make black people stop making excuses because they are simply black” this is stereotyping, and racist. “Democrats harbor negative views toward blacks — many calling them "lazy," "violent" or responsible for their own troubles.”(3) Assuming that an entire race is lazy, or constantly making excuses, is plain wrong. I think that negative thinking like this needs to end if we are to achieve any sort of change. On another note you expressed that Obama won due to his appeal to younger people.
I don’t think that there is one solid reason that Obama won like you said. The statement that people thought it was a time for change is definitely valid. “The basic choice, was Inspiration vs. Restoration, Obama's hope message flagged among certain constituencies, it worked better overall than nostalgia for the competence of the Clinton years.”(1) Obama was successful in reaching the passion and heart of America. The choice of “change” as opposed to restoring seems much more appealing. When people think the country is on the wrong track, they are looking for something different and new. Simply restoring what was already seemingly in a downfall, is fruitless. There are other key factors that went into Obama’s victory.
He was very organized. He could raise money like it was his job, suck up to superdelegates, and network. He raised up to $7.1 million a day, or $293,000 an hour.(2) Obama built a team of leaders, and campain memebers that helped him pull out a victory. This same organization and skill will be helpful to him in office as well.
I feel like your blog really lacked any substance. It was mostly compsed of generalizations, and unsupported thought. I think that you should elaborate more on why you thought he won, and why McCain didn’t. I think that you may have just been being lazy, and next time you should put more thought into what you are saying.
(1)http://www.newsweek.com/id/140129
(2)http://www.cnbc.com/id/27521728
(3)http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803840/
This is in response to Alex. While I agree that McCain’s campaign suffered from mismanagement, association with President Bush, and a failed economy, I think Sarah Palin was a factor in the election. By the way, I did like your cooking metaphor.
First, your evidence (1) does not make the argument you claim it does. It is from September 26. This was over a month before the election. October was a critical campaign month and this article did not take it into consideration. Also, this article only says that Sarah Plain should be a non-factor. It does not state that she is a non-factor. In fact, the author asks for Democrats to turn back to the main issues in his last paragraph:
If I were a Democrat, I would leave Palin to the mercies of the investigating bloggers. The election is too important to all of us to begin and end with her. I would get back to the central issues. That is where the election will be lost or won. (1)
Finally, you evidence, while written by a very credible author, includes no evidence on how Palin does not impact the campaign. The author is also from Great Britain. This does not mean he can’t analyze American elections, but he should use evidence to support his point that Americans don’t care about Sarah Palin- as should all journalists.
Second, Sarah Palin did play an important role in the campaign (3). Fourteen percent of news stories before the election revolved around Sarah Palin (4). It damaged McCain’s claims of Obama’s experience to pull an Alaskan governor with little experience as his vice president (2). Also, because of McCain’s age, people looked to Sarah Palin more than people looked to Joe Biden (2). Sarah Palin also suffered from several bad media interviews which were parodied on Saturday Night Live (5). Considering that many people watch these programs at the exclusion of real news, it is hard to see how Sarah Palin was not a factor. Twenty percent of Americans ages 18 to 29 consider “The Daily Show” and “The Colbert report” credible sources (6). Six percent of people above age 30 say John Stewart is their favorite journalist (6).
Third, the selection of Sarah Palin demonstrated McCain’s hasty judgment (2). Later examples of her experience made voters question McCain’s ability to choose knowledgeable candidates (2). Also, his choice of Sarah Palin made him turn away from several of his more moderate positions (7).
(1) http://burmadigest.info/2008/09/26/the-palin-non-factor/
(2) http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/2008/11/20/an-historians-analysis-palin-a-gamble-that-didnt-pay-off/
(3) http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/2008/11/10/20081110aztalk-newsmaker1110.html
(4) http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2008/nov/16/outside-looking-assessing-us-election/
(5) http://www.examiner.com/x-1166-DC-Conservative-Examiner~y2008m11d17-Palins-run-was-the-peak-of-her-career
(6) http://media.www.villanovan.com/media/storage/paper581/news/2008/11/06/Entertainment/Stewartcolbert.A.Credible.News.Source-3527012.shtml
(7) http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1860919,00.html
So far so good. Overall y'all are doing a great job being much more specific in your feedback to your peer (what you liked and didn't agree with in their post). I also like it that you are quoting specific parts of the other person's post and checking on their sources. I am enjoying reading your posts. Keep up the good work! M. Aby
In response to Katie B:
Although the Electoral College votes went overwhelmingly to Obama, they were separated by seven mere percentage points in the popular vote (1). This fact makes me doubt your conclusion that the Democratic candidate would have won no matter who was his or her opponent. Both candidates ran on a campaign of change; McCain’s webpage proudly displays the slogan “Reform, Prosperity, Peace (2).” Obama, however, was perhaps more vocal about his goals; McCain simply alluded to change with his ‘maverick’ comments as not to distance traditional conservatives. Obama’s charisma and youth also came into play during the campaign (3). I agree with your thought that McCain’s age was a factor in shaping the election’s outcome; at 72, he would have been the oldest president elected in the United States (4). His ‘inexperience’ message was ill-fated after he chose Palin, who did not do well in any of her major interviews. One particular moment comes to mind: Katie Couric’s interview with Palin when Couric questions Palin about the legitimacy of her foreign policy experience based on her country’s proximity to Russia (5).
Obama’s campaign was not only more skillfully managed, but also did not accept the matching federal funds like McCain did (6). I agree with your thought that the acceptance of federal money and the resulting cap was one of the many mistakes McCain’s campaign made in the final months. Obama was able to focus on Ohio, both in urban and in rural areas, which allowed him to take the state with approximately 200,000 more votes than McCain (1). Many counties also saw increases in percentage vote for Democrats compared to the 2004 election, which indicates that Obama’s choice to spend enormous sums of money in Ohio had a significant impact on the state’s voting (6). I think that your statement about the white majority’s ability to elect a president would be more accurate if whites voted in a more cohesive fashion in the 2008 election; although McCan got the majority, his 55% was only twelve points away from Obama’s 43% of the white vote (1). This indicates to me that whites do not vote as a cohesive group; in fact, Obama did win the majority of young (age 18-29) white voters (1). Although minorities voted overwhelmingly for Obama, they could not have ‘elected’ him as president without overwhelming white support.
1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/
2. http://www.johnmccain.com/Undecided/WhyMcCain.htm
3. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/10/politics/main4589947.shtml
4. http://www.thestar.com/news/uselection/article/526509
5. http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4478156n
6. http://www.nj.com/opinion/times/oped/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1227157540319620.xml&coll=5
I have to strongly disagree with Oscar’s statement that “this (victory for Obama) will make black people stop making excuses because they are simply black”. Just because he is now president doesn’t erase what has happened in the past and what is still happening today. There are still racists out there. I actually think that since Obama’s inauguration, of some of the closet racists are lashing out more aggressively. It isn’t only restricted to the deep south either. In St. Joeseph’s University (more commonly known as St. Joe’s), La Salle University, and Lehigh University, there were incidents where racial slurs were used, black students were being violently attacked, and racist graffiti was found in the campus. There were even a leaflets saying “Your president is black. How does that make you feel?” It’s beginning to make some of the students feel unsafe now (1). Racist sentiments are coming out a lot through the internet, too. “Instead of hiding behind white hoods, they’re hiding behind the Internet,” said a faculty member of the University of Alabama (2). It’s easier to express how you feel when nobody knows who you are, as the hundreds of college students at Juicycampus.com have showed (2).
Other than that, I mostly agree with your comment. He offered change when, in such a critical time, we really need it. He appealed not only to the young people 66% to 31%, many of them first time voters (3), but also to the working class and minorities who might not have voted otherwise.
The BBC reported that the current state of the economy was also a big factor. It stated “Those ‘very worried’ by economic conditions voted 59% to 38% for Barack Obama.(3)” Hopefully, we’re not wrong on who will lead us out of this economic slump.
By the way, where are your sources?
1) http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/Local-Universities-Grapple-with-Post-Election-Racism.html
2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27754374/
3) http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7709852.stm
Warning: The response you are about to read is in response to a controversial issue, so anyone who reads this will either agree or disagree completely.
This is a response to the post of Lauren the Wise:
Recently we elected our first African American president, but gay marriage has been outlawed in a few more states, including California which previously supported it. Some are saying that it is a violation of the constitution, but banning same-sex marriage is not denying anyone rights because marriage technically is not a constitutionally given right, and it is not discrimination based on race, sex, or national origin, so it is up to the states to decide on this issue. There is no constitutional amendment yet, and there probably will not be one for a long time still, if ever. There are some states like Massachusetts that recognize same-sex marriage, so homosexuals would be better off moving there if they want to get married rather than trying to fight for marriage rights in other states like California or conservative states.
In response to the comment about the former oppressed groups becoming the oppressors, I think you are exaggerating. I can understand you find banning gay marriage as a cruel act, but everyone has the right to an opinion, and they are just voicing their opinion, not committing hate crimes or anything like that which would be unconstitutional.
When you talked about how homosexuals won’t get respect because they don’t have equal rights, it brought up an important fact about life. Although I don’t agree that they are oppressed because they can’t get married, the fact of the matter is that the world is filled with a variety of different people. We have fought for a long time in America to give equal rights and end discrimination, but there are still many racist and sexist people in America, and the situation is even worse in several other nations. Discrimination is one of those things that you cannot get rid of no matter how hard you try because people cannot change other people, they can only change themselves (1). For example, African Americans may have equal rights, but there are still some racist people out there. Although we are at the point where most Americans can accept an African American president, there are still some people in America, and people in other nations who do not like Obama. We can fight wars and make laws, but there is no way to truly eliminate discrimination.
In response to your "what harm will it cause," there are many different ways people will respond to this. Like you said, some people are traditional and want to maintain the same family structure, some are simply homophobic, and the list goes on and on. In my opinion, issues like same-sex marriage and abortion should not be on the top of our policy agenda because these issues are emotion driven, not rationally driven. Policies regarding these issues will change over and over again, or else will get nowhere. Government should focus on issues that can and must be solved for the sake of everyone in the nation like the economy and the social security crisis, curing diseases, protecting our nation, etc.
Sources:
1. http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/clegg/clegg061902.asp
In Response to Kasandra:
Barack Obama definitely had many things going for him in this election. I think probably your best point, and one of the most crucial aspects that John McCain should have worked harder at was to cut ties with the Bush Administration. By keeping himself and his campaign linked to the Bush Administration and to be endorsed by Bush multiple times, it was just like a captain staying with his sinking ship… He ruined his own campaign by being associated with the Bush administration, because clearly the vast majority of the population wants nothing to do with Bush anymore. I agree that he had the young people’s votes and so do all the big news stations and everyone else who was covering the election. I thought you had the great evidence to back up your claim about the young people with the 66% of the votes going to Obama, and I had found the same statistic (1). But also you didn’t mention that Obama also won every age level of the popular vote from 18-64, and he only lost the 65+ vote by 8% (1). Also I agree that Sarah Palin only added to the McCain defeat. I don’t think there is any way of getting around that. McCain’s biggest argument was that Obama was inexperienced, and when he chose Palin as his vice president, that argument was thrown right out the window (2). Also it didn’t help McCain’s campaign all that much that Palin was so conservative while McCain is more towards the center. I feel like he lost some of his more moderate votes when he picked Palin, and I guess the trade off for the more conservative votes wasn’t the best choice. Your point about the money was particularly important, because this election showed that money is a big factor in the presidential race, and with McCain’s poor campaign management, and with Obama raising over a two hundred fifty million more than McCain, there is no doubt that McCain could have handled that better (3). Overall I agreed with many of your points, and thought you had a very good analysis of the race.
1. http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/
2. http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/05/mccain.anatomy.loss/
3. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/index.php
Response to BJORN:
I disagree that Obama should focus on the economic issue first. I think that Obama should consider dealing with both problems at the same time. If Obama can solve the energy crisis, it may lead to a possible solution to the economic crisis. The energy sector, specifically the oil and natural gas industries, are important contributors to the economy (1). These problems are interconnected because if Obama deals with the economy first and ignores the energy problem then it may undo his work. The oil and natural gas industries employ 5.929 million people both directly and indirectly (1). If Obama were to solve the economic crisis, and the oil companies crash because of oil shortages. The economic crisis would return and most likely be worse than it is now, if there is no oil. The same thing happens the other way too. If Obama tries to concentrate only on the energy problem and mostly ignores the economic crisis, then the consumers may lose confidence in the market because the government isn’t backing it. This could cause an economic collapse and things would be messier than they are now. These are mostly pessimistic views of some of the worse case scenarios.
I think that it is interesting that Bush is meeting with Obama earlier than usual because of the numerous current problems that the U.S. faces. Obama has a tough road ahead of him. It is harder, in my opinion, to fix the problems that someone else is responsible or partly responsible for. It is easier to fix your own problems because you know more details relating to the cause and possible solutions.
Your first source brings up a controversial issue on the economy. It talks about whether the government should bailout the failing auto-industries with $25billion dollars (2). This is similar to the earlier debate about the financial companies collapsing and the $700 billion government bailout given to them. It will be interesting to see how the government handles this and how Obama will tackle this problem in the future.
I agree that Obama has to make some quick decisions and not ponder too long because the American people are not in a real happy mood with the plummeting stock prices.
1) http://www.energytomorrow.org/economy/
2) http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/11/09/obama.transition/index.html#cnnSTCText
Bremily –
I enjoyed your post on the reasons Obama won and what it means for our country. In particular, I found the three articles you cited to all be entertaining reads, especially the Inrich opinion article [3]. In your post, you mentioned that Obama’s campaign was strongest in its call for change, which I do agree with. However, I really feel that this has become a very cliché remark, especially considering that his campaign slogans dealt with change and hope, which you cited in your last sentence. To verify that I’m not the only one who thinks this, I found an article online that discussed Obama’s three cliches – Change, Unity and Hope [1]. Don’t get me wrong, I think that these are admirable goals, but I often get fed up with hearing these words. This probably puts me in a very small minority, but that’s okay. In fact, I would argue that your cliché argument is quite correct in stating that advocating for change helped him win the election, albeit in a different light. This gave him much charisma during his campaigns, which I believe drew in many voters. Had I not agreed more with conservative policies and done my own research on issues, I probably would’ve voted for Obama simply because listening to his speeches made me happy. As is, I thought that his speeches lacked policy and I did not agree with what policies I did hear, especially the economic ones regarding spreading the wealth [5].
I agree that McCain’s ties to President Bush were detrimental to his campaign, but I have to object to your statement that he had less discipline in his campaign. I did not find that in the Politico article, although I may have missed it [2]. As is, I’m tentatively concluding that it is your opinion. I have never questioned McCain’s maturity or character, and, having watched the debates, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a smirk. Your points about campaign money, organization, and technology are all solid, but if we ever manage to nominate a candidate lacking in maturity, then I will be worried.
I do think that your last point about what Obama’s win means for our country is good regarding America’s standing in the world community [4]. The globalization of this election was astounding, and I actually had the opportunity to hear accounts of the American election from two foreign points of view [6]. When I was on the phone with relatives in China, I was amazed by how in-the-know they were about American politics. I couldn’t really understand their thoughts on the political positions of the candidates because of the language barrier, but I could sense a general excitement about Obama. Also, I saw one of my mum’s Chinese newspapers devote the entire above-the-fold-front-page to a picture of Obama in October. This would be understandable on November 5th, but I was surprised by how early it showed it. I also heard a viewpoint from France, where Obama has much support. In fact, I found it especially interesting that my friend, who used to be very conservative, after studying abroad for two months in France ended up voting a split ticket in favor of Obama. In our conversations, it was interesting to see how her viewpoints were affected by the support that Obama got in France. I think that Obama’s initial election has definitely elevated America’s level of standing in the world because of his widespread support. Charisma and cliché can only carry you so far though. I am eager to see how many of Obama’s policies on the economy and foreign affairs play out. It is my hope that I am proven wrong and they help to create a better nation of America, but only time will tell.
[1] - http://drdanny.newsvine.com/_news/2008/01/27/1258843-obamas-three-clichs
[2] - http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1108/15301.html
[3] - http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/opinion.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2008-11-09-0063.html
[4] - http://www.news24.com/City_Press/Columnists/0,,186-1695_2426926,00.html
[5] - http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/18/campaign.wrap/
[6] – My conversations with my aunt and cousin in China and friend in France
In response to Alec:
I disagree with your assessment of why McCain’s campaign was unsuccessful. The main reason for McCain’s failure was his shocking lack of funding compared to Obama. McCain’s campaign spent $85 million, compared to Obama’s $650 million. (1 and thanks Jessie for the source). McCain’s simple inability to broadcast his strengths to the American public is what lost him the election. In Pew’s weekly News Interest Index, 76% of respondents had heard more advertisements about Obama than McCain. 38% of respondents actually wanted to see more about the republican candidate. (2).
McCain has long been respected by members of both parties as someone who did what he thought was right, whether or not the proposed legislation ran along the Republican party line. Despite the campaign slogan “the original maverick,” voters seemed to lose their memories of the historically respected McCain in the sea of Obama advertising. With such a lack of funding, McCain simply had no chance to compete.
I did agree with Alec’s point that the economy was a major factor. In presidential elections, the economy has always been a factor. When the economy is in a slump, the incumbent party is much more likely to be beaten, whether Democrat or Republican. (3). This frustration with the Republican party weighed heavily against McCain, whether justified or no.
1. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/us_elections_2008/7704246.stm
2. http://people-press.org/report/441/obama-fatigue
3. http://www.aier.org/research/commentaries/666-presidential-elections-and-the-misery-index
Ajsiir
I do not think that a large reason to why McCain is because of his negaive advertisements. In fact I do not believe that he personally had more than just a few advertisements that he himself approved. Norm Coleman was not addressing the fact that McCain had the negative advertisements, he was addressing the republican party as a whole.
But i do have to agree with you that Pailn did add to the fact that he did lose the race even though I think that America as a whole just liked Obama not dislike McCain.
AJ
On the issue you addressed about Sarah Palin, I believe she did hurt the McCain campaign. 60% percent of American voters said they did not believe Sarah Palin could be president, or take over as president. Now I know she wasn’t running for president, but in the case of having to take over the country, people don’t have faith in her abilities. Another reason Palin was picked was to appeal to women and independent voters, and she didn’t come through for McCain in that respect. You talk about how the media attacked her, and I agree with you in that case, but she did her fair amount of attacking, and running negative ads against Obama (on the whole Obama associated with terrorists issue). McCain picked Sarah Palin to get the evangelical votes, which he receive 4 out of 5; but Americans didn’t want that. People wanted change, not the same old thing, and Palin was the traditional pick. Obama was offering a new path, winning over usually Republican states; whole McCain and Palin were campaigning for the votes they already had secured. I don’t think she destroyed his campaign, but I think if there was a different VP pick, there could have been a tighter race in the end.
However, I agree with you about George Bush’s impact on the McCain campaign. If Obama was Republican, and McCain was Democratic, I think Obama would have faced some of the issues McCain did. The Republican Party was given a bad reputation, and it is hard to try to win over Americans after such a rough year under a certain party. Bush’s approval rating dropped, less than 50% which puts a toll on the Republican Party. Also, the Republican Party in general ran extremely negative campaign ads which affected McCain. Americans looked at the campaigns more negatively towards the Republican Party, instead of the aimed party, the Democrats.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,447364,00.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/27/AR2008102702406.html
Ms. Aby this is so late and I’m SO SORRY!!
In response to Molly’s post about advice for Obama in the first 6 months…
I agree with you that fixing the economy should be a very high priority for Obama right now; too many Americans are becoming jobless, students’ futures are suffering, and it is putting a strain on families. It is a huge problem that needs immediate addressing. However, a president needs to be able to multi-task extremely well, and if he does as you suggest, America would fall apart completely.
For example, if while fixing the economy he doesn’t give as much thought to the war for six months, we would have a HUGE problem. Troops would be ignored, more people would die, and the frustration with the war that exists already would multiply. The current war will cost us an estimated $5000/second (if we are completely out by 2018, with no North-Korea style troops left at all – watch the video!) (1). Putting the war on the back burner temporarily would raise the projected $3trillion dollar war total even higher, ultimately making our economy even worse. If you look at the cost counter at nationalprioritiesproject.org you can watch the cost going up every second (2). Throwing money into something not given a high priority would be a very bad practice, especially with our economy the way it is right now.
On another note, you quoted Obama’s plans for ending the war, put you neglected to say how he plans to achieve his goals. While they sound great and wonderful (I mean who doesn’t want secure nuclear weapons and our troops home safely?) I’m not sure how practical they will be (3). No matter how much in-depth coverage the news gives us, there is always more information, kept secret for the protection of American citizens and troops. I think it will be interesting to see if Obama’s plan for a “responsible and phased” withdrawal of troops will slow down once he is in office and privy to all the information.
http://www.good.is/?p=12104&gclid=CJaH47b4i5cCFQw9GgodrzuFmQ
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/
Dan-
I’d like to talk about Obama’s “inadequate tax policy” for a moment. I shall not use the argument that people wouldn’t want $1,000, because obviously it seems that no one could possibly want more cash to spend. It’s good also that people are spending so much right now with our failing economy that it will quickly be revitalized. *cough*
But now on to my real argument; a return to Clinton-Era tax policies. During the Clinton-Era, we had a balanced budget (1). That’s right, we weren’t selling ourselves out to China by billions of dollars a year (3). We also had incredible job creation, 6 million in the first two years, and gave tax cuts to lower income families as well as small businesses, much as Obama plans to do (1).
I’m slightly confused because you’re using an argument against Obama’s tax policy telling me that the vast majority of small business owners fall in the income bracket that qualify for a tax break and don’t have to bear the tax burden of a $200,000+ income, the argument that Obama used to justify his plan. Maybe you should re-examine your views.
As for the continuation of the Republican tax policies with the “trickle down” theory, one has only to watch NBC Nightly news and to realize that the national debt is over 10 trillion dollars and has been increasing at a rate of almost 4 billion dollars A DAY since last year (2). If such deficit spending is indeed a liberal policy, consider me fiscally conservative.
I agree that Obama needs to make troop withdrawal a priority. I think that accountability for the new government would be key in making sure that a stable system that works for Iraq (not necessarily ours) will be maintained.
(1) - http://www.perkel.com/politics/clinton/accomp.htm
(2) - http://www.brillig.com/debt_clock/
(3) - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17424874/
Post a Comment