Huckabee Blasts McCain for Supporting $700B Bailout

Take a look at this article. It talks about how McCain should have given Americans a "true, authentic conservative choice rather than a big government echo with a weak 'me too' way of doing things," concerning the Bailout when during the campaign he rushed back to Congress in an effort to "fix the economy" . Here we see that even members among the same party don't always agree with each other. Republicans are suppose to hate the Bailout - yet McCain, a "Republican" supported it?

Module 5 - Congress

This week, we are taking a closer look at political parties as they relate to Congress. From the reading we've learned many things about this interaction. Most of the reading focuses on the shift in culture in 1994. This shift refers to the massive change in the party culture in D.C. when the GOP took over. During this time, we also saw the parties become more homogeneous, so it was easier to get things done in Congress - definitely not like it is today. Newt Gingrich, the Speaker of the House at that time, is often credited with this shirt to Republican control in Congress. Many people saw Gingrich was so effective as Speaker because he had a special relationship with with Congress members whereas they believed he shared their claims, thus were more likely to agree with him. Another factor that made him quite popular was his "Contract with America" - which played a huge role in government reform in America. Gingrich also treated his fellow members well, listened to their ideas, and genuinely cared what ideas they had, as well as made himself available to them, which also made him quite successful as Speaker. This Republic reign - which lasted quite some time, 1994 - 2006 - definitely shaped they way Congress ran. Then in 2006, things changed. The Democrats suddenly took over Congress as the ruling majority party. We all know why this happened. No one liked Bush's stance on the war and were fed up with him and wanted something different. This is when we often see major changes in Congress - when presidential approval is low. When presidential approval is high, and the president's party is the majority in Congress, we don't see the "switch." I think we can definitely see some stark differences between the Republican reign starting in 1994 and the Democrat reign starting in 2006. In 1994, it appears that, Republicans and Democrats worked together for the most part and got things done more so than they do now. There was definitely some cooperation among the parties back then. Now, we see bitter bickering and no one will back down. Gone are the days when Congress does the right thing for Americans, but now we see them doing what's right for themselves. As we've discussed alot in this class lately, we see this shift to more candidate-centered campaigns, which makes a lot of the decisions that are going in Congress more self-involved rather than group-involved. Generally, the minority party can't get a lot done. I suppose in the "old days" it was alot easier for minority and majority parties to work together, but today, that's almost totally gone. A great example is the stimulus bill then Democrats just passed. The Republicans and Democrats were at war with each other to create a bill that would work - but the Democrats were too stubborn, and a bit suspicious-looking, when they tried to ram this thing through so quickly. We all knew it would pass in the end because Democrats have the majority. So why do the Republicans even try to get things done their way if they know there is a slim chance of that happening? I think the answer is because they want their voices heard, especially when it comes to re-election time. Just because there is a democratic president and a democratic Congress doesn't mean the entire country agrees with their ideas. In fact, alot of the country doesn't agree with them - and that's where the Republicans come in. Even though they have that slim chance of getting things done, they still have the ability to influence Congress and make a stink - and sometimes that's all you need. The 214 Republicans bother to show up because they do have a voice too, be it a small voice right now, but the little stinks they can through might make a difference in legislation passing. Some one has to speak out for the little guy, and right now that's the Republican party. Who knows what kind of mess Obama will be creating during his presidency, so the Republicans are gearing up to clean up that mess when the time comes. Let's see what happens in 2010, shall we?

Candidate Websites - Still Alive?

I looked into whether the 2008 presidential candidates websites are "still alive", and here is what I found:

John McCain... all his website posts is a farewell message and thanks from all his supporters.

Hillary Clinton... ahh, classic. Clinton's website posts a BRIEF quote and asks you to contribute to a "clean-up fund" - wow...

Barack Obama & Joe Biden... here we also don't see much. A brief thank-you, a plead for a donation and the selling of Obama 08 t-shirts, again... interesting.

Perhaps if we searched the candidates' websites in December or so there would have been more there, but as we reach the end of February, these websites are pretty much non-operational.

Here is an article that discuss the 2008 election and the Internet: Election 2008: The Internet Campaign. Many people don't know how to respond to this new phenomenon. Internet-savvy users love it, yet the ones who are not to high-tech may not appreciate or understand it very well. I am one of those people in the middle, I don't rely solely on the internet for my news, I am more of a talk radio gal.

What Happended in 2008?

This week we are to discuss what happened in the 2008 election, as it relates to our readings for the week:

There is no doubt that as the presidential elections come and go, every four years it seems that the candidates are becoming more and more "vulnerable." This time around, President Bush had nothing to worry about since it was his last term in office. Normally, if a candidate was up for re-election they would be scrambling to garner as much support as possible. It was pretty clear that America wanted "change" and "hope" this time around, so even if Bush was allowed to run a third term, there is no way he would have won it. As always, candidates area individuals focused on winning their own elections - so 2008 was no different. The Democrats clear had an advantage this time around because they ruled Congress, but the Republicans gave a tough fight too.

There are always going to be tensions between candidate-centeredness and party centric campaigns because the candidate is after one thing and one thing only - winning the election. They will care more about their "own" campaign that they party's campaign, and rightly so. Obama and Hillary clearly held different opinions on many topics such as health care and the war. Generally, the Democrats have one big idea about such topics, but each candidate formed their own opinion (a more specific opinion, if you will) about such topics. Although the Democrats support government-run health care, both Obama and Hillary had their own versions of what that would look like, which created tensions amongst the two.

It seems that because of new technologies in presidential campaigns, such was the Internet and 24-news channels, we have begun to see more of a candidate-centered campaign. Candidates can now post their own Facebook pages, create their own blogs, and become the focus of 24-new channels by not waring a lapel pin on their jacket. There is so much more focus on the individual than the party these days. I think the media plays a large role in this transition. They become "attached" to one candidate (clearly in 2008 that was Obama - they just LOVED the guy) and clearly focus all their time covering that particular person and bashing others (like McCain & Palin). With candidates using these new technologies more than ever, it's clear that the days of the party running for office are over.

Congressional candidates also receive individual attention, it's not as wide spread as the presidential candidates. Frankly, that's because not as many people care about Congressional members as they do the president. I'm not too familiar with how Congressional candidates run their campaigns, because I've only just begun to be interested in politics, so I'm not sure if they use Facebook or YouTube more frequently than presidential candidates do. - Does anyone follow these types of campaigns?

It was clear in the 2008 presidential election that candidates used the Internet more than ever - is this a good or bad thing? I think they are taking a gamble when using the Internet too much because hackers can get into their sites and "mess things up" pretty bad and if they aren't careful they can make themselves look like fools. Facebook and the likes are clearly tools to reach out to the younger crowd - but how often do these younger folks come out to vote? Is it worth the candidates effort to use Facebook? As a non-Facebook user myself, I'm not sure. I'm not sure how effective their Facebook pages may be.

Obama to Sign Stimulus Bill Tuesday

This week, my article link is entitled: "Obama to Sign Stimulus Bill Tuesday" - "Obama to Sign Stimulus Bill Tuesday."

We all know that this "stimluus" bill is causing great grief amount the Republicans and Democrats - the Reps. don't like it's pork and the Dems. are fighting hard for it. It seems a little suspicious that the Dems. are fighting to hard to get this passed ASAP - probably because there is so much pork in it they want it to get signed before anyone knows what's really going on.

Just something to take a look it. I'm sure it will pass, but with how much support from the Reps.?

Module 3: Election Rules & Factions

This week we are to discuss elections and campaign finance.

The text suggests that primaries were implemented to "diminish the influence of political organizations on political life." - in essence primaries were created to limit the amount of influence that parties have on the nominating process. I agree with this comment because the establishment of direct primaries have allowed the voters to have more of a say in who gets nominated and who doesn't. It's really become MORE democratic with the invention of the direct primaries. Caucuses and conventions, when they were used, were tools that allowed "bosses" control over who was nominated and what their platforms stood for. With the invention and success of direct primaries, voters have enjoyed the luxury of more political participation. They are allowed to use their vote as a way to voice their opinion. Primaries are also a simple way for average voters to take part in the entire process. Each primary is based on state law and each state controls their own primaries, which I think is important because each state can make their own rules and regulations as they see fit. One downfall of these direct primaries is that it produces a more moderate candidate - one who must conform to the wishes of all the voters so he must appeal to those on the left and those on the right. This may be a good thing for some, but it's also a downfall for others because some voters who label themselves an independent appeal to those moderate candidates, while those who label themselves as Conservative or Liberal may not be attracted to a moderate candidate.

Campaign finance has played a large role in campaigns for several decades now. There are generally three main complaints concerning campaign finance: campaign costs have grown too much, people who donate expect something in return, and there is often corruption when huge sums of money are spent/collect for political purposes. To address some of these concerns, the FECA and McCain Feingold Act have been created and implemented. Due to these "new" acts, new restrictions have been put in place regarding how much can be contributed to campaigns and how campaigns are suppose to disclose that information to the public. These regulations have come with mixed results. The main goal was to limit the cost of campaigns, but obviously this aspect has greatly failed. Campaigns are more expensive than ever. These acts have also failed to curtail the influence of organized interests as well as allowed candidates to use federal funds to aid their campaign. On a positive note, the regulations have somewhat limited the amount of corruption and misuse of monies that have gone on. Money is definitely a motivator so it's important to keep a close eye on who contributes, how much they contribute and what their possible "motivations" are. Certain groups may contribute more in the hopes that they will get something in return from the candidate if they win. For instance, let's say that a specific environmental group contributes tons of money to a presidential campaign in the hopes that if that candidate wins they will support that group's initiative. It's almost like buying votes - that sort of stuff we should keep an eye on - and that's why we've created these regulations. They will probably get even more strict in the future. Making campaign contributions available to public access is one way to hold candidates accountable. I think it's important to have factions because its a way to make sure every group is spoken for, but too many factions may clog the system and draw attention to places that aren't important.

Young Voters Help Start Political Phenom

For this week's article, I have chosen: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr11/0,4670,PoliticalCelebrities,00.html

This article, entitled:"Young Voters Help Start Political Phenom" talks about how decentralization has played a role in the past 2008 election. It was an election of great importance because more and more regular Americans became involved. Alot of the politicians involved in the election of 2008 came to talk to us average Americans and to me that speaks alot - obviiously they came to talk to us to get votes but at the same time it makes you feel like they are trying to relate to you on some level. The article also says, "Obama's success has validated the larger cultural decentralization, which replaces the old, vertical, expert-to-layman approach with horizontal, peer-to-peer interactivity." People think they can relate to Obama and "how far he's come."

Interesting article.

SKolbeck

Module 2: Decentralization

This week, we are asked to think about how decentralization affects parties and the challenge it poses:

Decentralization helps to shape parties and make them more attune to the public's needs and wants. Decentralization in politics is the idea that more power is given to politicians at the local level so as to give them a better opportunity to serve their constituents. The goal here is to give elected representatives more power in decision-making power so they can better serve. If we didn't rely on decentralization our system would be a mess. Just think of it, if we let one person run the country, how would they be able to serve everyone. Every area has special needs and it would be impossible for one person at the national level to service all those various needs. For instance, how would someone from the elite east coast be able to relate to someone in the plane and simple Midwest? The answer is, not well. That is why we rely on our "own" elected representatives who live amongst us, who understand our problems and our needs, to represent us. There is no way someone who can't relate to the issues that are important to us to be able to govern effectively. Perhaps that is why many presidents who have come from very elite and wealthy backgrounds have a hard time reaching out to the average American. How can they possibly understand us if they've never "lived in our shoes?" I think the decentralization is an important part of our political system. America is an extremely diverse nation so we need extremely diverse people to represent us. I think the fact that Obama has become president is an important stepping stone in our country because it shows you that old white men aren't the only ones who can be president. You don't have to be rich, or come from a fancy background to be president. I think it's what this country needs - someone who understands us and our needs (whether Obama is that person is up for consideration, but that is another matter all together...). I think it's important to elect diverse people to governing positions because they will bring something "new" to the table, whether it be ideas, experiences, etc. Because of the election of Obama, I think the US is in store for alot of change in the future. There's no doubt we are going to have a woman president in the next couple decades, and who knows what's next after that? Although decentralization most of the times means the growth in the size of government, which in turn means more tax dollars, etc. I think it's best to let each state make it's own rules, and each county, town, city, etc. make it's own rules as well. There is no one better to govern that someone who grew up amongst us and has an understanding of what we need.