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.