Sunday, November 25, 2007
Policy Change
Since the November 2006 elections, where the Democrats regained control of the House and the Senate, many have wondered why there has been no policy change in regards to Iraq. There could be, and I’m sure are, multiple answers to this inquiry, but in my opinion the answer is fairly simple. It’s not as easy as people think to drastically change a policy such as the war in Iraq. Within the House and Senate there are many committees and subcommittees that the representatives must work through, and work within order to get anything significant done. This can be a difficult process, and can take a lot of time. This can also lead to policy looking different when it comes out of the committee than when it enters it, due to the influence of other members of the committees. Another reason why there has been no big policy change is because the Republicans still hold the White House. President Bush and the Republicans still are in the White House, and are still firm believers in the Iraq policy, and the old “stay the course” mentality. For the members of Congress this can be a very hard situation to deal with. It’s hard to pass any sort of big sweeping change in policy when the White House and the President are against you. This can lead to deadlock on certain issues and makes it very difficult for the Congress to pass anything too significant. Also, when dealing with a policy shift as big as an Iraq one would be, one must be careful. To do anything too drastic, too quickly could have adverse effects. The U.S. cannot simply just get up one day and walk away, which it seems is what some people thought would happen once the Democrats won in 2006. It can’t happen that way. It must be a slower, more thought out process. But that being said, even though the Democratic victories in ‘06 didn’t lead to a policy change in Iraq, no matter what party wins the White House in ‘08 expect there to be some policy changes at that time.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
Candidate Assessment
When assessing the current presidential candidates there seems to be a lot of similarities. But then again I suppose one could say that about any presidential elections. For this week we were asked to assess one of the candidates from each party, based on the factors of how electable they are, what kind of image they convey, and which activists seem strategic and which seem less strategic.
When looking at Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, you see someone who is very electable. In fact out of the top three democratic candidates he looks and sounds like the most typical option. He has everything from looks and charisma to a solid platform to run on, so to many observers he is your basic politician. Based solely on the way he looks, sounds, and acts, I would say that he is the most electable candidate the democrats have.
When looking at the image Edwards puts out there, I personally felt it was a little cheesy, but most politicians tend to be so it’s a factor you learn to look past. When going to John Edwards official website you are greeted with a large picture of Edwards with his family. This picture looks like your typical department store family photo taken to send to family members in a Christmas card. But that’s all part of the image Edwards wants to convey. He wants to seem like the guy next door. The run of the mill father and husband. That is his image. The nice, caring family man here to change the country. I’m not saying this is a bad image, in many ways it’s a good image. This country could use a leader who cares and wants to genuinely change the country for the better. But all the emphasis on family and the pictures and everything do seem a bit overboard and as I said a tad cheesy.
Some portions of the Edwards campaign do feel strategic, but overall I think that he truly does care about the issues he talks about the most. On his website he has a to-do list which lists the main issues he wants to tackle if elected. On the list are global warming, Iraq, health care, and jobs and poverty. Most of these issues I feel are not strategy, but issues he cares a lot about. He has been a strong advocate for getting out of Iraq for a long time now, and he really seems to believe what he says. Same goes for jobs and poverty. More than any other candidate he truly seems to want to help people in poverty and in need. As far as global warming, that feels more like strategy. Global warming seems to be one of those bandwagon issues that candidates are jumping on because Al Gore made it cool. It feels like strategy and like he is attempting to be part of the hip global warming crowd.
As far as the republicans go, candidate Fred Thompson is an interesting man. On the matter of electability I’m not quite sure what to make of him. He is a former senator and actor, but he just doesn’t seem to have the “presidential” vibe. Despite Schwarzenegger winning governor in California and Jesse Ventura’s victory in Minnesota a few years ago, the majority of the country doesn’t seem ready to embrace Hollywood as it’s leaders. He may have been a senator, but more people are going to see him as “that guy from Law and Order”.
Thompson’s image isn’t very clear. When visiting his official website everything is labeled with “Fred” in front of it. Like “Friends of Fred” and Fred this and Fred that. It seems like they are trying to make him this guy that you have known all your life, or the fun grandpa who brings you presents when you visit. Despite being an actor Thompson lacks charisma and therefore his public image doesn’t seem to fit.
As far Thomson’s issues seeming strategic or not, I do not believe they are. While every politician has strategy involved in what issues they talk about, the same holds true for Thompson, but I feel that for the most part he really believes in what he says.
When looking at Democratic Presidential candidate John Edwards, you see someone who is very electable. In fact out of the top three democratic candidates he looks and sounds like the most typical option. He has everything from looks and charisma to a solid platform to run on, so to many observers he is your basic politician. Based solely on the way he looks, sounds, and acts, I would say that he is the most electable candidate the democrats have.
When looking at the image Edwards puts out there, I personally felt it was a little cheesy, but most politicians tend to be so it’s a factor you learn to look past. When going to John Edwards official website you are greeted with a large picture of Edwards with his family. This picture looks like your typical department store family photo taken to send to family members in a Christmas card. But that’s all part of the image Edwards wants to convey. He wants to seem like the guy next door. The run of the mill father and husband. That is his image. The nice, caring family man here to change the country. I’m not saying this is a bad image, in many ways it’s a good image. This country could use a leader who cares and wants to genuinely change the country for the better. But all the emphasis on family and the pictures and everything do seem a bit overboard and as I said a tad cheesy.
Some portions of the Edwards campaign do feel strategic, but overall I think that he truly does care about the issues he talks about the most. On his website he has a to-do list which lists the main issues he wants to tackle if elected. On the list are global warming, Iraq, health care, and jobs and poverty. Most of these issues I feel are not strategy, but issues he cares a lot about. He has been a strong advocate for getting out of Iraq for a long time now, and he really seems to believe what he says. Same goes for jobs and poverty. More than any other candidate he truly seems to want to help people in poverty and in need. As far as global warming, that feels more like strategy. Global warming seems to be one of those bandwagon issues that candidates are jumping on because Al Gore made it cool. It feels like strategy and like he is attempting to be part of the hip global warming crowd.
As far as the republicans go, candidate Fred Thompson is an interesting man. On the matter of electability I’m not quite sure what to make of him. He is a former senator and actor, but he just doesn’t seem to have the “presidential” vibe. Despite Schwarzenegger winning governor in California and Jesse Ventura’s victory in Minnesota a few years ago, the majority of the country doesn’t seem ready to embrace Hollywood as it’s leaders. He may have been a senator, but more people are going to see him as “that guy from Law and Order”.
Thompson’s image isn’t very clear. When visiting his official website everything is labeled with “Fred” in front of it. Like “Friends of Fred” and Fred this and Fred that. It seems like they are trying to make him this guy that you have known all your life, or the fun grandpa who brings you presents when you visit. Despite being an actor Thompson lacks charisma and therefore his public image doesn’t seem to fit.
As far Thomson’s issues seeming strategic or not, I do not believe they are. While every politician has strategy involved in what issues they talk about, the same holds true for Thompson, but I feel that for the most part he really believes in what he says.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
New Party
This week in class we were presented with a scenario that let us pick either the democrats or the republicans and destroy them. Our mission was to build our own parties out of the ashes of the party that we destroyed. The result of that premise for the group I was involved in was a party called the Bear Claws. This new party that we created had some new innovative ideas, and overall played more towards moderates.
The platform for the party involved new, but not too radical, approaches to foreign policy. Examples of this include making a steady plan for with drawl from Iraq, and keeping no more troops there than needed, and focusing more on building their government up. Domestically the party focused on trying to focus more money domestically than foreign, and have no frivolous spending, it would advocate abortion only in cases of rape or health concerns, keeping gay marriage up to the states, and coming up with new fuel alternatives and ending our foreign dependance on oil. On the issue of campaign finance reform we decided that all funds must be raised through a national bake sale. Also the party would target bloggers and younger people, it would have celebrity campaigning, and the candidate would also visit every major college campus, and someone from the party would be required to visit every campus in the country. We also set realistic goals for the party, stating that we did not expect to win the presidency the first time out, but may pick up a few seats in Congress, and we would also be willing to further mold our party depending the results and responses we get in our first election. But now the question remains, would these guidelines be a good thing to follow?
Personally, I feel that these would be good guidelines for a party to follow, although maybe in more general terms. Some ideas like the national bake sale, which I would be a fan of, may go over like a led zeppelin in real world politics. But the main idea that our party brought to the table, appealing to the moderates, I would advocate following. The country today is too polarized and instead of trying to tear down the other person and the other party maybe one of the parties should try moving more towards the middle and attempt to unite more people. There are a lot of people out there who don’t have a strong party connection and have more moderate views. The parties should try appealing to them. I think the people would embrace a party that demonstrated some change. Start to trying to compromise on foreign policy and do what’s best for everyone in the long run, show more fiscal responsibility, don’t spend money stupidly, and take a realistic stance on social issues that are both responsible and logical. Instead of talking about change, make change, do something. Those are some the ideals and guidelines are party advocated that I feel should be followed. Also, our party targeted young people which is something that desperately needs to be followed. The parties are slowly starting to try to do this in different ways, but it needs to be more aggressive. Target bloggers, facebook, and college kids like our party wanted to. Make a mixed cd, and make sure someone from the party visits every college campus in the country. Get out there and make a real effort to reach the youth, and try to establish a connection with them. Like I said the parties now are making strides with this, but for some reason it still feels like they are step or two behind.
Launching a new party would not be easy, but I do feel like following some of our guidelines would be a good idea. Our main ideas were trying to capture the people who were on the fence about both parties and not too far to the left or too far to the right, and also about showing some change. These are guidelines that should be followed. Go after those people on the fence, but do it by showing some real attempts at change. I think these ideas would be useful to follow.
The platform for the party involved new, but not too radical, approaches to foreign policy. Examples of this include making a steady plan for with drawl from Iraq, and keeping no more troops there than needed, and focusing more on building their government up. Domestically the party focused on trying to focus more money domestically than foreign, and have no frivolous spending, it would advocate abortion only in cases of rape or health concerns, keeping gay marriage up to the states, and coming up with new fuel alternatives and ending our foreign dependance on oil. On the issue of campaign finance reform we decided that all funds must be raised through a national bake sale. Also the party would target bloggers and younger people, it would have celebrity campaigning, and the candidate would also visit every major college campus, and someone from the party would be required to visit every campus in the country. We also set realistic goals for the party, stating that we did not expect to win the presidency the first time out, but may pick up a few seats in Congress, and we would also be willing to further mold our party depending the results and responses we get in our first election. But now the question remains, would these guidelines be a good thing to follow?
Personally, I feel that these would be good guidelines for a party to follow, although maybe in more general terms. Some ideas like the national bake sale, which I would be a fan of, may go over like a led zeppelin in real world politics. But the main idea that our party brought to the table, appealing to the moderates, I would advocate following. The country today is too polarized and instead of trying to tear down the other person and the other party maybe one of the parties should try moving more towards the middle and attempt to unite more people. There are a lot of people out there who don’t have a strong party connection and have more moderate views. The parties should try appealing to them. I think the people would embrace a party that demonstrated some change. Start to trying to compromise on foreign policy and do what’s best for everyone in the long run, show more fiscal responsibility, don’t spend money stupidly, and take a realistic stance on social issues that are both responsible and logical. Instead of talking about change, make change, do something. Those are some the ideals and guidelines are party advocated that I feel should be followed. Also, our party targeted young people which is something that desperately needs to be followed. The parties are slowly starting to try to do this in different ways, but it needs to be more aggressive. Target bloggers, facebook, and college kids like our party wanted to. Make a mixed cd, and make sure someone from the party visits every college campus in the country. Get out there and make a real effort to reach the youth, and try to establish a connection with them. Like I said the parties now are making strides with this, but for some reason it still feels like they are step or two behind.
Launching a new party would not be easy, but I do feel like following some of our guidelines would be a good idea. Our main ideas were trying to capture the people who were on the fence about both parties and not too far to the left or too far to the right, and also about showing some change. These are guidelines that should be followed. Go after those people on the fence, but do it by showing some real attempts at change. I think these ideas would be useful to follow.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Early Attack
This past week the Democratic candidates for President in 2008 held a debate. The debates at this stage in an election season usually tend to be pretty formulaic. Not much new information is presented, there are too many candidates all trying to make their points, and so on and so forth. The debate this past week however did have a significant difference in it. That difference was in the tone of it. Most polls and media outlets have indicated for awhile now that New York Senator Hilary Clinton is the Democratic frontrunner, and many already feel that she will win the primary and will be the democratic candidate. Well, after this weeks debate you might as well count the rest of the democratic candidates among those who feel she will win the nomination.
For reasons unknown to me all the democratic candidates seemed to basically take the attitude that Clinton is going to win so lets’s all attack her. Much of the debate centered on going after Clinton and pointing out her flaws and weaknesses. To her credit Clinton handled it like a frontrunner should. She took it all in stride and tried to stick with the issues and make her points, doing nothing to lower her frontrunner status. But the real question that one wonders about this is whether or not this is a good idea for the democratic candidates and the party.
At this stage in the campaign is it really smart for the democratic candidates to attack one of their own? No votes have been cast yet, and even though the primary elections are starting earlier than ever this time around the fact still remains nothing has been decided yet. There is still plenty of time for some of the other candidates to gain ground and we have seen many occasions where the person many believed to be a lock for the nomination has been upset in Iowa or New Hampshire and someone else came along and gained momentum. By attacking Clinton as they did the democrats seem to have agreed that she is going to win, and also it shows signs of panic. The democrats should be trying to stand as united as possible at this point, but instead they are going after their own. This just doesn’t seem like smart logic, and frankly the only one it benefits is Hilary Clinton herself.
For reasons unknown to me all the democratic candidates seemed to basically take the attitude that Clinton is going to win so lets’s all attack her. Much of the debate centered on going after Clinton and pointing out her flaws and weaknesses. To her credit Clinton handled it like a frontrunner should. She took it all in stride and tried to stick with the issues and make her points, doing nothing to lower her frontrunner status. But the real question that one wonders about this is whether or not this is a good idea for the democratic candidates and the party.
At this stage in the campaign is it really smart for the democratic candidates to attack one of their own? No votes have been cast yet, and even though the primary elections are starting earlier than ever this time around the fact still remains nothing has been decided yet. There is still plenty of time for some of the other candidates to gain ground and we have seen many occasions where the person many believed to be a lock for the nomination has been upset in Iowa or New Hampshire and someone else came along and gained momentum. By attacking Clinton as they did the democrats seem to have agreed that she is going to win, and also it shows signs of panic. The democrats should be trying to stand as united as possible at this point, but instead they are going after their own. This just doesn’t seem like smart logic, and frankly the only one it benefits is Hilary Clinton herself.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)