Wednesday, May 6, 2009
What Arlen Specter Defection Means for California Republicans
There's republicans in California? Juuuust Kidding!!
What Arlen Specter Defection Means for California Republicans
There's republicans in California? Juuuust Kidding!!
Favre Pulls a Specter....Kinda
Although it's not yet official, Brett Favre could be a Viking by the end of the weekend. It looks like he will be wearing purple and gold, looks like people will call him a traitor as well. A couple weeks ago Arlen Specter decided to switch over to the democrats in order to stay alive in the political arena. There's a few similarities here don't you think? Favre just wants to play football. Firing the pigskin for a touchdown (or interception), as long as he's throwing it. Specter just wants to remain in the game in Washington. His chances would have likely been squandered in the next election.
Specter claims that his views have changed from the republican side to the democratic side in his almost 30 years in the senate. Does this have consequences for both sides? Of course. It's just one more blow to the GOP in the last 8 months or so. Although it could be pretty big considering if Al Franken takes Minnesota's seat it would give the democrats 60 seats in congress. That would make them filibuster proof. That puts a pretty big thorn in the side of republicans. Specter hasn't always voted conservative though. He did vote for President Obama's Stimulus package, and his fellow party members weren't very pleased about it.
Specter would have faced a challenger in Pat Toomey. He obviously didn't like his chances. So instead of going into retirement or putting up a fight, he chose the easy way to get his paycheck. He switched sides. Just like Mr. Favre. TRAITOR!!! Would Fiorina be surpised? He does say that members of congress are more polarized than they have been in the last 30 years (pg 18). I'd say that would shock him just a tad. I'm more surprised about Specter than I am about Mr. Favre. I realize there isn't much to compare between the two because one is politics and one is sports, but at the same time there is still some issues that you can compare. Specter thinks he stands a better chance at winning his seat as a democrat next year. If there's anything we've learned that's been obvious in some of the readings, it's not about the party, it's about the candidate. It's not about the team, it's about the player. Politicians, like athletes, are ego maniacs. Looking out mostly for their own interests and care only about what benefits them.
Politicians have their own agendas, and if their agenda leads them to break from their party, so be it. Congress might be more polarized than the normal every day American (might), but does that mean this whole swinging from one vine to the other will lead other politicians to switch parties? As far as I'm concerned I don't think so. Specter might have changed his views on things because he probably wouldn't have won in 2010, but he also might have changed with age. He probably changed for the wrong reasons, but when it comes down to other people switching parties, it won't and will not happen very often. People, especially politicians, are more polarized than anybody. This was a simple case of Favre-ism. Selling out to stay in the game.
Specter claims that his views have changed from the republican side to the democratic side in his almost 30 years in the senate. Does this have consequences for both sides? Of course. It's just one more blow to the GOP in the last 8 months or so. Although it could be pretty big considering if Al Franken takes Minnesota's seat it would give the democrats 60 seats in congress. That would make them filibuster proof. That puts a pretty big thorn in the side of republicans. Specter hasn't always voted conservative though. He did vote for President Obama's Stimulus package, and his fellow party members weren't very pleased about it.
Specter would have faced a challenger in Pat Toomey. He obviously didn't like his chances. So instead of going into retirement or putting up a fight, he chose the easy way to get his paycheck. He switched sides. Just like Mr. Favre. TRAITOR!!! Would Fiorina be surpised? He does say that members of congress are more polarized than they have been in the last 30 years (pg 18). I'd say that would shock him just a tad. I'm more surprised about Specter than I am about Mr. Favre. I realize there isn't much to compare between the two because one is politics and one is sports, but at the same time there is still some issues that you can compare. Specter thinks he stands a better chance at winning his seat as a democrat next year. If there's anything we've learned that's been obvious in some of the readings, it's not about the party, it's about the candidate. It's not about the team, it's about the player. Politicians, like athletes, are ego maniacs. Looking out mostly for their own interests and care only about what benefits them.
Politicians have their own agendas, and if their agenda leads them to break from their party, so be it. Congress might be more polarized than the normal every day American (might), but does that mean this whole swinging from one vine to the other will lead other politicians to switch parties? As far as I'm concerned I don't think so. Specter might have changed his views on things because he probably wouldn't have won in 2010, but he also might have changed with age. He probably changed for the wrong reasons, but when it comes down to other people switching parties, it won't and will not happen very often. People, especially politicians, are more polarized than anybody. This was a simple case of Favre-ism. Selling out to stay in the game.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Obama:Candidate v. President
Do candidates do exactly as they say once they become president? Do you think he's lived up to expectations? Has he kept his promises since he took office in January?
Bartels takes the checkered flag
I agree more with Bartels side of the argument than I can about what Frank had to say. Bartels argument is more compelling to me because he has made a few observations that the rich is getting richer and the poor is getting more poor. George W. Bush had some of the largest tax cuts ever for the rich. The social aspect is something that I cannot deny either. I also think that the more wealthy you are, the more stock you put into social issues like gun control, abortion, and gay marriage.
I agree when Bartels thinks that he's talking more about activists than voters. "The issues on Frank's list range from bias in the news and school prayer to flag burning and offensive art" (Bartels 217). People that are burning flags and protesting school prayer aren't your typical go to the poll to vote people. Those are people we call activists. While I don't think you should pray in school or burn flags, I can't relate to Franks ideology in his article because I haven't had that type of experience as a voter. Franks working class is someone that doesn't have a college degree. I agree more with Bartels when he says that it is someone that happens to make below $35,000 a year. Some of the argument between these two I find hard to really choose but just because you have a degree doesn't mean you aren't working class.
"The relationship between issue positions and voting behavior was vastly stronger among whites with college degrees than among those without college degrees." Those are the results on abortion from Bartels. I think that is the result because of people having more education on that issue. Things like gun control could be completey different when it comes to the rich v. the poor, but these wedge issues are issues that have been going on for a long time and the stances have been varying from these different classes.
This election year was no different from any other year. People went to the polls to vote and the results were overwhelming. Barack Obama won the election, and working class voters came out to vote in record numbers. When Bartels said that working class people care more about the economic issues than moral issues, I believe this election might have nailed that theory to a T. With the way the country has been and the hole we have dug ourselves it's a little different from elections past, when moral issues like gay marriage and abortion have been a bigger part of them.
I agree when Bartels thinks that he's talking more about activists than voters. "The issues on Frank's list range from bias in the news and school prayer to flag burning and offensive art" (Bartels 217). People that are burning flags and protesting school prayer aren't your typical go to the poll to vote people. Those are people we call activists. While I don't think you should pray in school or burn flags, I can't relate to Franks ideology in his article because I haven't had that type of experience as a voter. Franks working class is someone that doesn't have a college degree. I agree more with Bartels when he says that it is someone that happens to make below $35,000 a year. Some of the argument between these two I find hard to really choose but just because you have a degree doesn't mean you aren't working class.
"The relationship between issue positions and voting behavior was vastly stronger among whites with college degrees than among those without college degrees." Those are the results on abortion from Bartels. I think that is the result because of people having more education on that issue. Things like gun control could be completey different when it comes to the rich v. the poor, but these wedge issues are issues that have been going on for a long time and the stances have been varying from these different classes.
This election year was no different from any other year. People went to the polls to vote and the results were overwhelming. Barack Obama won the election, and working class voters came out to vote in record numbers. When Bartels said that working class people care more about the economic issues than moral issues, I believe this election might have nailed that theory to a T. With the way the country has been and the hole we have dug ourselves it's a little different from elections past, when moral issues like gay marriage and abortion have been a bigger part of them.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
The Moderate Majority
After looking and hearing about how people are so far right or so far left I stumbled across this article and found some of the things in it interesting. If you find yourself to be more centrist maybe you will agree with some of the numbers that are thrown around.
The New Party in Washington
When trying to come up with the creation of a new party, I have been trying to figure out how to create a party without expressing my own political beliefs. I finally figured out that I should just say screw it and incorporate my beliefs into this party. The new party will consist of people of all colors, sexes, and sexual orientations that will all benefit from this type of party. Instead of veering away from some of the controversial issues like abortion and gay marriage, let's tackle them head on (well maybe not abortion since I'm a guy and really don't think it's my duty to discuss something that I have no clue about when it comes to what runs through a womans mind).
The party will be a pretty conservative when it comes to tax cuts and the taxing of people. Tax cuts for the rich? Come on you're already rich, while I feel for you I also understand that there are things that need to be done in order to make improvements to the country and the state you live in. You'll be taxed but not like you will be normally if liberals keep it up. Bailouts for CEO's and executives in certain financial institutions will not be had. Your money will not be put towards people that have failed millions of others so they can go away to a spa for the weekend. More of your money will go towards local governments, such as your own that you spend money in. Too many people get taxed and either don't know what their money goes towards or don't agree with where it goes to. Listening to the people will be one of the main priorities of this party. Local politicians will propose things that they think should be done throughout the community such as improving schools,roads, and parks, all things that are forever being used by members of the community. I think this is good because every region of the country has different types of culture, whether it be a more hispanic culture in the southwest, or the WASPy's in the south east. They will all have the power to see where their money is going. There will be a vote each year on the first Monday in April so that members of the community can vote, people that don't vote obviously don't care enough about what their money is going to, but that is their choice.
Nationally the platform will weigh in on national security, relations with other countries, the economics of our government, and issues such as gay marriage. While some of these are controversial I believe it is good for our government and political party. As Aldrich put it, "Citizens, in spacial theory, are motivated by policy. That is, they have preferences about what the government should do, and those preferences motivate their actions." We will listen to the people on certain issues but, at the same time we will be a little less attentive to their opinions if we feel it is not in the best interest of the government. When it comes to national security we will spend money on protecting the country you call home, and when it comes to going to war with other countries, we will not spread our army thin by being in places that maybe we ought to not be in. Not saying we go into isolation, but not quick to jump the gun either. In order to determine how much to spend on national security every couple years we will select a committee that will propose a plan on how much we should spend on our defense. Gun control will be in the hands of local governments and their decision will be final. Gay marriage will obviously be a national issue, and in the end will be made legal. Homosexuals pay taxes too people, more taxes than many other people. It's not god's decision on whether or not you can be married, because after all not everyone believes in god. In the constitution there isn't a law saying two men or women cannot wed eachother. Believe in god, but don't make it your decision on whether or not someone other yourself should be married.
The states that will help dictate the success of this party will be out in the west and in the midwest for the most part. Out west there are obviously more homosexuals (IE California), once gay marriage is legal though many people will change some of the beliefs that they hold dear because that will not be an issue anymore. Plenty of people will want tax cuts and support who wants to save them money. The people that will become part of this party are up and coming people that have an open mind and are willing to save people money but still realize that the bible isn't the constitution. Religion will not dictate and therefore I think you could also recruit more people in both parties that aren't so left or right. Gays, minorities, whites, and everyone that wants to have a voice in politics will be targeted to serve as the base of our parties.
This party will change with the times, be an ever evolving door that will adapt to the types of beliefs and technologies that are thrown at us throughout the years. It will take about 10 years to build up some steam of this party but I believe it can be done. I think governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana would be a good face for my party. Fiscally he is a conservative but he also is not a vocal person when it comes to gay marriage and abortion. He let's those decisions be made to other people because it doesn't concern his own well being. He also balanced the state of Indiana's budget without increasing taxes. Someone like him would be perfect because this party is built on many different issues, the main ones being tax cuts and gay marriage, but it will take someone that is tolerant of people that will be able to lead this party.
The party will be a pretty conservative when it comes to tax cuts and the taxing of people. Tax cuts for the rich? Come on you're already rich, while I feel for you I also understand that there are things that need to be done in order to make improvements to the country and the state you live in. You'll be taxed but not like you will be normally if liberals keep it up. Bailouts for CEO's and executives in certain financial institutions will not be had. Your money will not be put towards people that have failed millions of others so they can go away to a spa for the weekend. More of your money will go towards local governments, such as your own that you spend money in. Too many people get taxed and either don't know what their money goes towards or don't agree with where it goes to. Listening to the people will be one of the main priorities of this party. Local politicians will propose things that they think should be done throughout the community such as improving schools,roads, and parks, all things that are forever being used by members of the community. I think this is good because every region of the country has different types of culture, whether it be a more hispanic culture in the southwest, or the WASPy's in the south east. They will all have the power to see where their money is going. There will be a vote each year on the first Monday in April so that members of the community can vote, people that don't vote obviously don't care enough about what their money is going to, but that is their choice.
Nationally the platform will weigh in on national security, relations with other countries, the economics of our government, and issues such as gay marriage. While some of these are controversial I believe it is good for our government and political party. As Aldrich put it, "Citizens, in spacial theory, are motivated by policy. That is, they have preferences about what the government should do, and those preferences motivate their actions." We will listen to the people on certain issues but, at the same time we will be a little less attentive to their opinions if we feel it is not in the best interest of the government. When it comes to national security we will spend money on protecting the country you call home, and when it comes to going to war with other countries, we will not spread our army thin by being in places that maybe we ought to not be in. Not saying we go into isolation, but not quick to jump the gun either. In order to determine how much to spend on national security every couple years we will select a committee that will propose a plan on how much we should spend on our defense. Gun control will be in the hands of local governments and their decision will be final. Gay marriage will obviously be a national issue, and in the end will be made legal. Homosexuals pay taxes too people, more taxes than many other people. It's not god's decision on whether or not you can be married, because after all not everyone believes in god. In the constitution there isn't a law saying two men or women cannot wed eachother. Believe in god, but don't make it your decision on whether or not someone other yourself should be married.
The states that will help dictate the success of this party will be out in the west and in the midwest for the most part. Out west there are obviously more homosexuals (IE California), once gay marriage is legal though many people will change some of the beliefs that they hold dear because that will not be an issue anymore. Plenty of people will want tax cuts and support who wants to save them money. The people that will become part of this party are up and coming people that have an open mind and are willing to save people money but still realize that the bible isn't the constitution. Religion will not dictate and therefore I think you could also recruit more people in both parties that aren't so left or right. Gays, minorities, whites, and everyone that wants to have a voice in politics will be targeted to serve as the base of our parties.
This party will change with the times, be an ever evolving door that will adapt to the types of beliefs and technologies that are thrown at us throughout the years. It will take about 10 years to build up some steam of this party but I believe it can be done. I think governor Mitch Daniels of Indiana would be a good face for my party. Fiscally he is a conservative but he also is not a vocal person when it comes to gay marriage and abortion. He let's those decisions be made to other people because it doesn't concern his own well being. He also balanced the state of Indiana's budget without increasing taxes. Someone like him would be perfect because this party is built on many different issues, the main ones being tax cuts and gay marriage, but it will take someone that is tolerant of people that will be able to lead this party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)