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.

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.

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.

GOP's future: More trouble ahead

I wrote in my other post for today that the GOP needed a face lift. It looks like I'm not the only one that thinks so. Will they be able to make a comeback by 2010 though?

The GOP in political turmoil?

When I think about what dilemma that the republican party is facing I couldn't help but think of the Whigs. (I just finished the reading about an hour ago). One quote that came directly to my head from Aldrich stated, "A party can be or become a majority only as long as it attracts a large number of strong and effective candidates and officeholders." Yes I realize that is pretty obvious. In order for a party to be successful they need to have candidates that are well liked in the public eye. The problem though that has come as of late is that as far as presidential candidates, it didn't seem like there was too much of a united front from the party. Reading that article in the New York Times wasn't alarming at all to me because if you watch television and you watch one of the 163920 news outlets you'll know that there has been some issues in the republican party. Was it George W. Bush that caused this? Was it too many other people in the party with their own agenda? Was it just that Barack Obama was too much of a giant that instead of him being a thorn in the GOP's side, he was actually a stake in their heart?

After Clinton's term ended the nation wasn't in very bad shape. We weren't putting a stimulus package together, Wall Street wasn't down however many thousand points they were down, and people weren't losing their houses left and right. Does that have a bit to do with the way this last election unfolded? You can bet on that. Republicans were like a deer in the headlights after election night in November. They had just suffered a loss unlike any other. Regrouping is obviously a good idea, but they have to do more than that. One of the reasons Barack Obama did so well is because he was fresh blood. People look at his experience and say he didn't have enough, but it was different because yes he was younger, and yes he was a minority, but he was accessible. He was vocal, and he allowed people to come at him with interviews and other things like per say, being in "People" Magazine. I don't care what you say, if the president is in the Star Tracks part in the beginning, it won't hurt his campaign unless he's holding a joint or something along those lines.

He plays basketball, he does NCAA pools on espn, he's a family man. Yes he is, but he's also been the opposite of what many republicans are. A lot of republicans (yes so are many democrats) are old, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I voted republican for crying out loud. I just think that in order for the republican party to remain a vital part of the two party system they have to open the doors a little bit, have a bit of reform. Reform in some of their policies and stances. When I said republicans are old I think that because of their age some of the views they have on certain issues hurt their campaigns. If democrats were in the republicans position I'd pry say the same thing, but they aren't. The GOP could use some younger candidates and make them more accessible to the public, kind of passing the torch to the younger part of the conservative party. Younger might not always be better, but in this case it can't hurt because in order for them to remain relevant they have issues to fix for future elections. Barack Obama got the minority vote. Republicans talk about wanting to get the minority vote. Minorities are a very important vote in America these days. It's been well known that 25 years from now or so Hispanic and African American populations will rise two fold. I used to look at past elections and you could see that it was a sort of cycle almost that republicans would be in office, then democrats would over take it, and then right back to republicans. It's a little more difficult to see that way though knowing that the demographics over the next twenty five years will change drastically. If the GOP wants to remain a relevant party in American society, they have to come up with new ways to try to win over some of the minority population.

Defining Barack Down

Although this article is from December, I found the point about his deisre to reform healthcare at the end to be very interesting because when you look at healthcare reform and what changes would be brought, it would have an effect on everyone.

Electoral Mandate

I think that Barack Obama did have an electoral mandate for this election. The reasoning for this is because of the perception of him and his campaign and the strong following that he had attained throughout the campaign process. After all, his campaign was based on hope and change of all the things that were going wrong with the government in the last couple of years. I am not saying that the last president and his people are at fault. Barack Obama has created the perception that change will be brought with his being elected into office and that better days will be upon us.
I think it is not only about change though as to why Barack Obama had this electoral mandate. Barack Obama had star power. He was big time in the eyes of many Americans. He had the following of some of Hollywood's most powerful actors. Along with that there was also other issues that American's felt had to be taken care of, like the war in Iraq. Many people had been skeptics and opposers of former President Bush because of the stance he had taken on the issue. Even if you aren't a democrat, if you opposed Bush's policies and thought McCain would do the same things that Bush did, you were likely to vote for Obama, because the government would finally go in another direction.
Along with the war, the economic crisis that we are facing today is overwhelming and people look at the previous administrations handling of it in as a sort of failure I think. People always want new solutions to problems, and Barack Obama's stimulus package isn't a solution (we have yet to see the outcome), but it's more than what McCain promised the American people. If the stimulus package doesn't work it could be a thorn in the side of his administration throughout the next few years. What can be said though, is that he is making an effort to try to fix the problems that are facing this country and our crippling economy. I think Obama still does have a presidential mandate, and his numbers (at least from some news outlets) would back that up. What can be said though is that the people's perception of Barack Obama and what he will do is why the voters came out in such a strong numbers and supported him, and I think that is why there is an electoral mandate.

Ten Reasons Why You Should Ignore Exit Polls

While I'm not a very big Sarah Palin fan (wait til you get there, you'll see), I couldn't help but come across this article with 10 reasons of why you ignore exit polls. Since I'm not a big fan of exit polls I agree with most of the reasons of why you should not take exit polls to heart.

Module 6

I think that exit polls are something that stands in the way of American voters on election night. While I think they are often very informative I also believe that they may have a great effect on whether or not people will get out and vote or if they will be influenced enough by the results to stay at home and not exerscise their civic duty because a "winner" has already been declared.

Exit polls are very informative and provide us with great information about who of what age votes for who and who of what color votes for who, but not all exit polls are 100 percent accurate. In exit polls we can go all the way to counties that were won in a state or what candidate won what demographic in what county or state. They are very in depth in that perspective. If exit polls really are exit polls though, why not wait til way later in the night to project your poll? During election night in November I was finding out who won Pennsylvania and Georgia at 8 o'clock at night. Is that a bad thing? Not for me I guess because I had already voted, but other people that haven't voted can almost be persuaded to not vote. If we're showing projected winners in those states that early it shouldn't be allowed because polls are usually open til 10 p.m in most states. That's still one more hour that could have gone any way, especially for the loser. Hearing that your candidate has already lost doesn't make you want to necessarily get out and vote. That's like going late to a football game and your friend calling you and telling you that it's already over. Doesn't sound right to me. Wait until the next morning.

I think that in this 24 hour news network world everyone is always looking to have higher ratings, and that is why the exit poll is taken so often. Whatever will boost ratings they will do. In 2000 noone knew who was going to be the next president the day after, yet every news network had figured out who would be president, whether it was true or not. Why is this allowed? If I'm in California and I'm learning that Obama has already more than half the votes needed to become president I'm a lot less likely to get out and vote for McCain because in a sense it's already "over".

We rely on the media too much in this time of technology. While I understand that candidates and their parties are always trying to figure out who will win where, it shouldn't be broadcasted to millions of Americans until the voting and counting of the votes has actually occured in all 50 states. By doing so I think that you could see a higher turnout rate in states, primarily west of the Mississippi that have already learned of who will be our next president by the time they sit down to eat dinner.

Key Democrats oppose Obama's tax deduction plan

Since all anyone can talk about right now is the economy here's some more soup for your soul. How much of an impact will these democrats have on this if they don't agree with it in the end. I'm sure conservatives don't have a problem with democrats being openly skeptical about this. Being hesitant of a plan like that has to have every day people raising their eyebrows.

Module 5

The role of the minority party I do not think should be taken lightly. If you look at how minority parties are they are usually pretty fiesty. They usually take the opposite stance on most issues from the majority (hence minority), but they also show up to debate with the majority everyday because they know that at some point they won't be the minority anymore. All these representatives in some way are still campaigning even though they are the minority because in order to make sure that they don't lose their seats they have to stick to their guns and take side with the party and people that voted them into that seat. I happen to think that people in the minority party are under even more pressure to keep their seat because in essence they have to stop the bleeding and try to make it possible for their party to gain some momentum and hopefully by the next election gain some seats so that they aren't the minority anymore.

There is no doubt that over time house members and senators seem to be getting more liberal and more conservative, creating an even bigger gap in middle. Does it make it harder to negotiate? Yes, of course. Just because you are the minority though doesn't mean that you don't have a say. Being able to persuade and having a good relationship with certain folk in the majority might be able to help you get your point across. What goes around comes around I think. Being a member of the minority is kind of like having President Obama's same message about hope and all that stuff he talked about in the fall while he was campaigning. Bi-partisanship is hard to grasp when noone can agree with eachother, but for the most part you hope that it creates some sort of deterrent before you vote on every issue just because your party voted that way. Being able to create deals with other senators could be a good way in order to try to pass a bill or bring up an issue with the majority. The key thing though with all this is though that one day the minority will be the majority, so you better play your cards right so when you are on the wrong end of the deal you don't get totally shorted.

The Internet's Effect on 2008 Presidential Campaigns

Here is a look at how the candidates utilized their technological resources througout the campaigning process. I think in the future candidates will be able to do much more as our technology advances, but how much is too much? Does it get a little over the top at some point?

Campaign of 2008

The campaign of 2008 was one that I thought was more in favor of the candidate than the party. There didn't seem to be much competition among republicans. Johnny McCain seemed to lock up the vote for the GOP pretty quick despite facing stiff competition from Mitt Romney, Rudi Guiliani and Huckabee. On the Democrats side Barack Obama got a little bit of momentum and ended up shooting down Hillary's dream faster than the Jamaican track team's performance in the 2008 Olympics. To me it was the storylines of the election that I found fascinating.
Due to it being 2008, campaigns became a lot more interactive among the people. Technology being the main cause of this. Both Obama and McCain utilized all facets of life, from radio to television to internet. It was like nothing I had ever seen before. Kerry and Bush in 2004 didn't use the latter nearly as much as 2008 candidates did in my opinion (My mind might be a little fuzzy in 2004 but I'm pretty sure it wasn't nearly as much). While candidates dominated the election season in 2008 there was no question that this was the year it should have happened.
Many Americans were unhappy with the previous administration and how they had handled many issues in the last eight years and thought it was time for change. John McCain was the sacrificial lamb for the GOP in my opinion. Did they really have a chance after Bush and Cheney's administration. If you're approval rating dips below 50 percent among your own party, you must have done something wrong. McCain seemed like the most moderate candidate for the job after 8 years of a very conservative president. McCain thought Sarah Palin would breathe some life into their campaign and resurrect the republican party so he brough her on as his vice-presidential candidate. That worked for about a week with normal Americans (longer with clueless soccer and hockey moms, my girlfriends included).
Barack Obama on the other hand was the talk of the election. After eight years of conservative rule in the White House, the people wanted change. When Obama had enough steam behind his campaign and Hillary finally conceded, Obama couldn't be stopped. With his campaigns going door to door to houses (I didn't answer) to let it be known Mr. Obama wanted your vote. Hearing his voice on the airwaves and and on my yahoo homepage must have gotten to be pretty expensive. It didn't matter though because he had raised so much money that it wasn't an issue. Democrats essentially just got out of the way and let him do his thing because that is how badly they needed the White House. Was he bigger than the democratic party? Yes he was.
To me 2008 was so big not because of the parties, disarray, or money spent on the campaigns, but because for once I saw some humility from the nominees of both parties. Actual human beings instead of some robot politician doing whatever their party wants.

Can Money Be a Force For Good?

I just kind of stumbled across this article and was pretty amused by how some of this works. I think last night I was kind of overwhelmed with the reading and all of the numbers they were throwing out and this was kind kind of a refreshing new look at this instead of from a text book. To learn of how money is raised and how technology has helped politicians raise money instead of taking it from their respected political parties shows that campaigns are already and expensive and could get even more expensive, but if it's all money from donors like us as everyday people we as tax payers I think should be honored that we get to give money, no matter how much, to the person that we think will run this country the best. I'm still left wondering though, will campaign finance laws change with the times?

Module 3

Primaries are a great thing. Just yesterday I got to go and vote in a primary for who would be village president. The guy I voted for won so I can say that I am very pleased with the outcome. That doesn't always happen, but I think primaries are great because they show what's likely to come in the future in certain elections like this that are local and even national. According to the book, "an important outcome of having the primary system is that party leaders have been sensitized to the interests and feelings of the most active rank and file members". Candidates usually want to place well in primaries so that they can get more funding from their party, depending on how important that persons seat is to win will depend on how much money they throw the candidates way. While I think "political machines" and bosses have been brought down by primaries, I also think that with the downfall of those people, the media has come in and become just as influential in what we see everyday. I do not think it was intended for the media to come in and become as influential as it has, but as you can see in events like conventions, they have transformed it into some sort of Hollywood award ceremony like the golden globes or oscars.
Campaign finance reform is a little different than the nominating process. I think the new reforms haven't really achieved some of their goals that they thought it would get to. It hasn't made the cost of campaigns limited. Campaigns have become more expensive times 10 in the last thirty years. People that are running for office often rely on campaign funds from many people and groups. Presidential candidates though can often raise more money through privately raising money and not incurring that many limitations. Look at how Bush got the nomination in 2000 over McCain. McCain ran out of money pretty much, while Bush had managed to rais over 100 million dollars. PAC's will donate money but it depends usually on the candidate and what they can do for them by winning the seat or maintaining the seat. PAC's are necessary for candidates because they give much needed donations in order to campaign, but I think it's still like borrowing money from a relative or friend because it's held over your head, if you don't really believe in their cause. I think primaries and don't really affect how much money is regulated towards each candidate in an election. You have your strongholds in government locally and in the state that you don't really have to worry about, so your national party will give you money depending on how close they think the race will be for you. Obviously if they think it will be a closer race they will pump more money into your campaign in order to try to be a winner in the election. I think that if you have the money to campaign and backing from state party leaders that you are in good shape in terms of having a chance to win an election. Factions in these elections have been a good thing because they are usually donating large sums of money to the candidate that will help their cause, and it helps create bi-partisanship because it seperates people and draws a line in the sand of what a person will and won't vote for.

GOP gubernatorial candidate Whitman outlines stands

After reading chapters 1 and 2 in Hetherington I thought this article on Ebay executive Meg Whitman was quite fascinating. Some of her beliefs, like many other republicans, are too conservative for Californians, who usually in presidential elections vote democratic, but have the Terminator who is a republican, in office. Are her beliefs about gay marriage and not giving help to undocumented immigrants some of the issues that would hold her back from winning the election of governor in a couple years? I think these are some issues that in other states might help her, but because of her location and geography will only hurt her. I just thought this was an interesting little piece of what hurts her in Cali, could help her in a place that bleeds red, like a southern state or Colorado, which has voted republican as of lately. Coming off more moderately might have helped her on a few of these issues here. Could being moderate on the issue of gay marriage hurt her in other red states, most certainly. I just find it interesting that a person's poison in one state could be a person's gold in another state.

Decentralization

Decentralization is something that has to be done in order to make sure our whole way of life runs smoothly. The federal government couldn't possibly be expected to do everything for everybody. That's why they place it in the hands of our local and state governements. With that being said our congress people (they aren't just men anymore people) and senators have the responsibility to address our issues that we have within the state such as potholes in the road (mighty big ones too at this time of year), homicides, water main breaks (incidently one outside my house the other day), and other issues that people may have within their district. The state and local governments broke down all of these problems into different branches so that everything could be settled fast and efficient. We have the police to deal with homicides, the water department to deal with my water main break, and even look at the Department of Public Instruction. Shorewood has to go to school longer every day because if they don't have enough contact hours with students their funding will get cut. Could the feds deal with all of the problems I have addressed right here? Probably not. If I called Mr. President and told him that I had a water main broke he'd pry say "Take your wife to the hospital there's nothing I can do about it". To put it simply, they have bigger fish to fry.
Decentralization is a logical response to heterogeneity because throughout the United States you can definately see people have different beliefs on certain issues. Each state and local government is different because of this. Ranging from how harsh certain penalties are if you commit a crime to what is done in cases of abortions, states all have different ideas and penalties for these issues (not just these issues though, a plethora of them.) Look at presidential election of 1964 when Goldwater ran against Johnson. Southern states had been primarily democratic states in the past, until the issues of segragation came up and Goldwater said that he would leave that up to the states. Guess who won all the states in the confederate states that election....Goldwater. (I guess we could say racism turned the south red huh?) Now that's a sad situation but it just goes to show that is what can happen when you take some control out of the feds hands and place it in the local and state governments lap.
Right now obviously the President is in control of the democratic party. How can he not be? With all of this hope for change out there that he's promised the democrats look at him as a savior right now, especially since they no longer have to worry about a republican presiden anymore and they have control of the house and senate.
To be honest with you I'm not sure who is in control of the republican party. Sarah Palin seems to want to make a run at the White House in 2012, but she's not in the senate or house. McCain is still too moderate for some hardcore conservatives. Frist was always a big player in my book for how he felt about stem cell research despite his party affiliation. I think the republicans need some new blood. The old white guy doesn't do the job anymore. In my opinion neither will the hockey mom. When I hear my girlfriends mom say "she's like a lot of other moms out there, I like her", that's too much for me. I don't need anyone running the country that's as smart as her (not saying that my gf's mom is dumb, I just don't want ordinary running the country).
It will matter going forward in terms of the presidency. I don' t think it will matter in terms of local government as much, because we very rarely (at least where I live) see a lot of changes in the districts around here. Voters are too set in their ways locally to change that I believe.

Sigh of relief for homeowners?

I guess you could say that it helps some people out. It's supposed to also breathe some life into the struggling market. While it may do that, I like that the President Obama is at least trying to make an effort to meet some of the demands that the GOP has asked for in this stimulus package. While I'm sure the president won't make them happy about everything in the stimulus package, it's nice to know that he is willing to work with them during this crucial period. Heck it seems like he's more willing to work the GOP than "dubya" was during some of his days in office. Sorry I just wish I could say that out loud to everyone. Is there anyway to do voice posts in these blogs?

Political Parties...It's not keg and eggs

A lot of people think they know what political parties are all about. Heck I used to think I did, but now I realize how clueless I have been all these years. Now I just think people that represent us don't like to pay their taxes We all know that Republicans want tax cuts, no abortion, and no gay marriage. We know that Demi's want to spend money (800 billion dollar stimulus plan), gay marriage, and a womans right to choose if she wants her baby. While the bi-partisanship is one of the great things about America, I wouldn't call political parties families or anything. Although, President Obama is certainly trying to sway the GOP with their bellies. The beauty of all of this is though that political parties represent you and the rest of the people of the United States. Everyone is so happy now with the "change" and "hope" and all else that comes with the newly appointed President Obama. A lot of americans smelled what Barack was cookin. Everyone (take exception to felons and minors) has a vote that counts in the United States. People vote for the political party that they think can benefit their lives the best. Call it a preference or an allegiance to one party if you will, but I dont know many people that just switch the party that they usually vote for. I live in Waukesha county though, so it seems as if everyone here is republican. I get thrown into the fire for having some moderate views on things around here. Political Parties are around so while coming up with rules and regulations in this country, hopefully the person that you voted for is representing you and doing the best they can in order to make sure that what is done for americans is done with tireless effort.