1896 and 2008: Issues on the Economy

In the current presidential election, voters are considerably concerned about the economy as voters were in the election of 1896. The 1896 election dwelled on the “Battle of the Standards” (Boller 167) which was brought on by the Panic of 1893. Considering the state of the economy now, many are worried about the repercussions it will have on them directly, ie, unemployment and decrease in income.

A recent article from Reuters, talks about the economy and how significant it is to voters in presidential elections. The article states, “The results of the latest CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll showed 42% of respondents cited the economy as the most important issue influencing their decision in voting for President.” Following the economy is the war in Iraq with 21%, healthcare with 18%, terrorism with 10% and illegal immigration with 7%.

Perceptions of the economy also differ, for example, in class we discussed that many people have varying ideas of what a bad or good economy is. Rather than looking at the GDP or GNP people look upon personal benefit and unemployment factors for assessing the economy. The article from Reuters gives further depth to peoples‘ views of the economy, “The poll also revealed that nearly three-quarters (74%) of 515 respondents interviewed believe the economy is now in a recession, with 29% considering the downturn serious. Fifty-three percent of respondents (53%) are expecting the recession to last at least one year.”

The present campaigns however are not solely based on the economy, many other issues play significant roles in casting a vote, as opposed to the election of 1896 where the gold and silver issue dominated the campaigns.

Sources:
Presidential Campaigns, Paul F. Boller Jr.
Reuters.com, "Economy chief Issue Influencing Presidential Vote..."

-Diana Davino

Economic Voting

As the reading in class has shown, it is evident that the economy can play an integral role as a vote motivator within the electorate. However, with the United States economy in what some may call disarray, will the franchise react in the patterns identified by Controversies in Voting Behavior?

HIllary Clinton may be attempting to remind voters, particularly in an attempt to sway independents, that the current Republican President has left the United States economy in a frightening state. With words like recession and economic depression floating around, she quotes "It's easy to give a speech about restoring the middle class, but it is hard to actually do it. ... We've been here before with a president who leaves the economic cupboard bare on Election Day." 

Clinton is calling for a stop to the rhetoric, and an increase in action. Her economic stimulus package is designed to address the "tax cuts for the rich" that Bush has implemented previously, and initiate an economic stimulus package that will result in benefits across the various economic strata of U.S society, focusing more-so on the middle class. However, are Hillary's attempts to remind the electorate that the controlling conservative party have led the U.S into this economic position cries that will fall on deaf ears? Identified in the Controversies of Voting Behavior reading, "Voters find it hard to judge the economic program of a new candidate for the incumbent party" (Niemi 200), considering they have not held the White House previously and don't have a presidential record to be scrutinized, or exploited. According to the reading, what voters will now practice, and which is applicable to the current 2008 election, is prospective economic voting. That is, the current President, George Bush, will be held responsible for the current economic situation, John McCain on the other hand, the probable Republican nominee, will not be punished by voters for his party affiliation with Bush. This has not stopped Clinton, nor has it stopped Obama from attacking Mc Cain's economic stance, which is also a focus on the middle class through extensive tax cuts and eliminating the "wasteful spending" of the government in an attempt to regain the trust of taxpayers. Both Clinton and Obama have attacked McCain's proposal, Clinton stating that "He'd rather ignore the credit crisis and the mortgage crisis -- or blame middle-class families instead of offering solutions on their behalf," and Obama, providing the second blow quoted "John McCain recently announced his own plan, and it amounts to little more than watching this crisis happen. While this is consistent with Sen. McCain's determination to run for George Bush's third term, it won't help families who are suffering, and it won't help lift our economy out of recession" (CNN.com). 

However, do not think that McCain has simply sat back and taken these attacks, he has struck back, almost linking Clinton and Obama's plans to what, according to the Presedential Campaigns readings, could be considered Federalist, " What is not necessary is a multibillion dollar bailout for big banks and speculators, as Sens. Clinton and Obama have proposed. There is a tendency for liberals to seek big government programs that sock it to American taxpayers while failing to solve the very real problems we face."

Similar to the election of 1896, economic prosperity is of vital importance during this Presidential race, however, will a change in the current economic situation make it a void issue, similar to the influx of gold made that made the Gold Standard vs Free Silver debate non-contentious in 1896? Or will this be a crucial decided come the Presidential Election later this year?

All quotes found at CNN.com

Presidential Endorsements

In the election of 1908, Taft was ridiculed for his relationship with Theodore Roosevelt. Many felt that Taft took orders from T.R. regarding his campaign tactics and issues. In Presidential Campaigns, Boller states “Jokes circulated about the fifty-one-year-old Taft’s subservience to T.R. ‘ That’s a splendid phonograph, old man ,’ went one story. ‘It reproduced the sound of Roosevelt’s voice better than I ever thought possible. What make?’ ‘We call it the Taft.’” Another joke, played off of the letters in Taft’s name; T.A.F.T, Take Advice from Theodore (189). Taft was supported by T.R. because they shared similar views on progressive ideals, however once Taft’s opinions differed from his, their relationship was strained permanently. Britannica states “Both policy differences and personal animosity eventually impelled Roosevelt to run against Taft for the Republican nomination in 1912.”

President Bush’s endorsement of McCain is similar in the fact that they have similar views on the war in Iraq, social security plans and Bush’s tax cuts. Things were not always this friendly though, the role is reversed in this election, enemies becoming friends versus friends becoming enemies. Bush and McCain had conflicting views, "He's embraced the Bush tax cuts that he voted against. He was against them being temporary; now he wants them being permanent. That's like marrying a girl you didn't want to date. He rushed to Bush's Social Security plan, even disavowing his own Social Security plan on his own Web site. He has now become Bush's third term," according to an article from CNN. Will things remain easygoing? Conflicts in the past could arise again and differences in opinions are likely to happen.

Sources: Presidential Campaigns, Paul F. Boller Jr.
CNN NEWS "Bush says He Wants McCain to Win Presidency"
Britannica, "Theodore Roosevelt, The Later Years"

-Diana Davino

Lets just make up things...I heard that works really well

In Hillary Clinton's stump speeches she always told a story about her Bosnia trip with her daughter and how it was supposed to be a lavish rally behind the troops, but when they got there they were "under heavy snipper fire" and were rushed to a safe location. I personally think she was wasted on black tar heroin...being the strong republican I am, however the story always seemed odd to CBS in particular. See they were there accompanying her, and there really was no fire or explosions or even a single gun shot.


CBS reports that the arrival was like a Hollywood red carpet event, with flowers and even the Bosnian active president was there. So when she said "we were basically told to run to our cars" did she mean greet, hug and kiss people, saunter over to the troops, and my favorite part is CBS later explains she joined the troops and their bar and drank and sang karaoke with them. As a cross country runner, running to me is more like moving my legs really fast, I should tell me coach it includes drinking and singing.

Why the lies? It made her look tough and demanding and willing to help out the little guys regardless of the cost. It showed that she was capable as a women to be tough as a man, and it shows the stupidity of the electorate for the most part, that we all bought and went along with it. Even when faced with the questions at the end she still stuck to her story...till now where she claims she misremembered much like Roger Clemens. "but I did make a mistake talking about it the last time and recently,” Clinton said. This probably happens all the time to boost the appeal of a candidate and to help show that they are better then they actually are.

For those of you head strong women, or Clinton lovers, I have obtained the real truth.


It is up to you whichever you believe.

Works Cited
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/03/25/politics/fromtheroad/entry3967275.shtml

Yes We Can

On February 2th 2008 a group of celebrities had launched a Youtube advertisement for the Obama campaign. It had given a parallel to Barrack Obama and Martin Luther King speeches and gave it a classy musical touch to it. Hit had shown that “Yes we Can” change and make life better with Obama as a whole. The celebrities had voiced out their support for Obama, but the really question is, will they actually come out and vote. Many times in Hollywood celebrities have proven to be the ones that don’t show up to the voting booths. In the 2004 elections we had seen that celebrities had organized a group called “Rock the Vote.” Where a handful of celebrities had come out and protested the importance of coming out and voting for your candidates. But we all know what really happen to the celebrities that were protesting the importance of coming to voting, it was that they didn’t even show up to the voting booths. So with the celebrities in Obama’s advertisement, will they come out and vote or are they all talk and no show. This Youtube Advertisement for Barrack Obama is it going to hurt him or will it help him. I think it will do both, one it will hurt him because I feel like most celebrities are flakes and use their powers of being in the spotlight all the time to influence people one way or another. I also feel that it will help him by having people that are or maybe looked up to by other people, that way if the successful celebrities are voting for Obama it must be a good person to vote for in these elections. If you want to watch this advertisement, go to YOUTUBE. Com and look up “Yes We Can”.

Extra! Extra! Read All About It! The Lure of Sensational News

In Jefferson’s Second Revolution we most recently read the chapter, The War of Words, which discussed a new breed of political leaders: the Logocrats. The War of Words alluded to the uprising of political newspapers, pamphlets and editorials. Republican newspapers flourished on emotional and eye-catching stories, most of which greatly embellished the actual truth. These biased newspapers attacked Federalists, their views, and actions. The Sedition Acts gave Republican newspapers publicity and backfired on the Federalists’ attempts to suppress the opposing party. Federalist newspapers were also around, however there were not as many as the Republicans. The text states “The sedition act had backfired. Two Republican newspapers, the Time Piece and the New York Journal had collapsed, but new Republican newspapers were springing up at the grass roots all over the country…”(Dunn 139). Newspapers evolved from being outlets for basic news (many times not factual), to including “editorials, letters to the editor, eye-catching typography, bold headlines, articles reprinted from other papers, poems, eyewitness accounts and personal stories of political conversions” (139). Sensational (sometimes fictional) news swayed votes and painted images in readers minds of what the Presidential candidates were like, Adams: aristocratic, prim and proper... Jefferson: Atheist, Jacobin, sexual deviant.

This brings us to present times and the question of biases in well-respected newspapers and media outlets across the country. An article I came across, by the New York Times, is flatly titled: “THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is the New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?” the response was “Of course it is”. The author of this piece, Daniel Okrent explains that the major social issues such as gay rights, gun control, environmental regulation and abortion “ignite” the right, rather than the ‘arts and leisure’ sections. Conservative examples of news sources could definitely be FOX News and their hosts, Bill O’ Reilly and Sean Hannity, among others. Their opinion programs are obviously much more biased than the general news.

Even though the New York Times and the Washington Times have biases, liberal and conservative respectively, the two major newspapers do not viciously attack opposing parties as compared to the publications of the early 1800’s. Newspapers are far more factual than they were in the early 1800’s due to the inventions of the internet, television and telephone. Information is readily available to check facts and clear up any false reports. Rumors do still circulate though; an example would be the one of Obama being sworn into office on the Quran versus the Bible. As we learned in class, rumors or allegations stick when the idea is already in one’s mind. Since Barack Obama is a Muslim name, they assume that it is true (it was proven false).

In conclusion, newspapers still hold political biases however they are now, for the most part, factual and reliable versus the publications in the early 1800’s. They can still erupt rumors which might sway people's thoughts and ultimately votes, however inaccuracies are brought to light more quickly than in Jefferson's era.

Pictures: National Gazette was a Republican newspaper of the late 1700’s that condemned Federalist views. The Gazette of the United States was a Federalist newspaper that denounced the Republican Party. Image Source: Wikipedia.org

Sources used: Jefferson's Second Revolution, Susan Dunn.

"THE PUBLIC EDITOR; Is The New York Times a Liberal Newspaper?" Daniel Okrent. New York Times.

-Diana Davino

Going on Vacation......

Barack Obama is on vacation! Yes, that's right, the guy who is running for president is actually human and taking a short rest and is on a mini vacation. He is right now vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands, specifically in St. Thomas. This short stop is probably nothing more then him resting up a little bit before a grueling last few weeks of the campaign in states like Pennsylvania and North Carolina. While Obama and all the rest of the candidates running for president are human (although there may be some doubt from an Obama official who called Clinton a monster, but that's another story), they need to rest up and take a vacation during a long campaign.

However, during the early presidential campaigns in the early 1800's, most of the presidential candidates did not campaign once they received the nomination of their party. This is most known with John Adams. He did not campaign at all, feeling that if the people wanted him to be president, then they would elect him (much of this view has to do with the Greek concept of aristeia). So by not campaigning at all for the presidency in public, it could be said that Adams and a lot of the early presidential candidates were on vacation until the election, but unlike Obama, they were on a really long vacation, not just a few days in the Virgin Islands.

Sites and articles from:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/24/obama-hits-st-thomas-meets-with-governor-unofficially/
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/03/barack-obama-si.html

The Supreme Court and Elections

With presidential elections, you are electing the head of the executive branch. The legislature can play a role in selecting the president when there is no majority in electoral votes received by any candidate. It was not thought that the other branch of government in the U.S., the judicial branch, could play a major role (except with voting laws), until the 2000 election of course. As everyone knows, the entire 2000 presidential election came down to the state of Florida in 2000, and arguments of whether there should have been a recount in Florida raged on in court. Eventually the case made it up all the way to the Supreme Court, and by a 5-4 margin, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Bush and the recount was stopped and Bush essentially won the state of Florida and the presidency. (This case is none other than Bush vs. Gore). So this year, as the race for the White House rages on, I found an interesting article regarding the Supreme Court and this presidential election year. This case involves a conservative group (Citizens United) wanting to play a 90-minute video that would essentially be negative for Hillary Clinton. However, the group argues that this 90 minute documentary would not be considered a commercial, and thus they do not have to disclose their contributers. However, lower courts ruled that the ads were political speech, and they needed to disclose their contributers. The case was denied a hearing by the Supreme Court, and is now in the hands of the lower court. While this is not as exciting or blood wrenching as the 2000 Supreme Court case, it still shows the Supreme Court can have some clout in an election year.

Another example of the court having some clout in an election year is after the 1876 election, when Hayes and Tilden were in a battle after the election over who really won. An independent commission was set up by Congress to figure out what to do with some disputed electoral votes in a number of states. On this commission, it included none other than 5 Supreme Court Justices. So it is quite interesting to see how sometimes, the Supreme Court can come into play in presidential elections.

Note: The article where I obtained this information from was at:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23779040/
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/24/scotus.clinton.movie/index.html

WANTED: a GOP vice-president

While the race for the White House has certainly been interesting this year, one thing is clear, John McCain will be, barring any type of health aliment or major scandal, the Republican nominee for President in November. However, now that he secured up the nomination with four big wins on March 4 (Texas, Vermont, Rhode Island and Ohio) he must look for a running mate. Preferably his vice presidential pick would help him balance the ticket, or add some more organization or even money. While it is doubtful billionaire Micheal Bloomberg would agree to be his running mate, there are some potential running mates out there that can help him add some pazzaz to the ticket.
It has been reported that former rival Mitt Romney might be interested in a #2 spot. While he would definitely add organization (especially his smear consultants as I like to call them from South Carolina) and some much needed cash (as Romney is a former businessman) to compete against the Democrats, but it may be unlikely as Romney so bitterly attacked McCain during the early primary season. Another potential choice is Florida Governor Charlie Christ. He endorsed McCain right before the Florida GOP primary, and many consider that to have helped McCain win the Florida GOP primary. He could add the BIG state of Florida into the win column for McCain with its 27 electoral votes.
Finally good ol' Mike Huckabee must be mentioned when talking about GOP vice-presidents. While he probably would do little winning state wise, (he probably could not even get Arkansas if Hillary is the nominee) he would add a crucial part to the McCain team that the media and sensed it is lacking, and that is a base with the religious right. With him as a vice-president candidate, he could potentially help McCain win over those pesky far right religious voters who seem to be a thorn in McCain's side and some of whom said they would rather vote for the Democrat than McCain.
All in all, no one really knows who the GOP vice-presidential candidate will be, probably not even McCain himself, as of yet anyways. The vice-presidency and running for it, can be interesting as we have learned. For instance, in 1796, Adams won, but his pick for vice president did not, (because of the system at the time) and Jefferson, his arch rival at the time, became a heart beat away from the presidency. In 1960, Kennedy picked his arch rival in the primary of that year Lyndon Johnson. When Kennedy was assassinated a few years later, Johnson became president, which shows how important the 72 year old McCain's decision for vice president could be in the future of this country.

Articles received from:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/13/mccain-romney-interested-in-vp-spot/
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/mccain-crist-mum-on-vp-possibility/
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/657743/mike_huckabee_as_vice_president.html

40 days until Pennsylvania

The Democratic primaries have just become what seems to be the longest waiting game ever. If the days crept by any slower people might just forget Hillary and Obama are trying to secure the democratic nomination. At this point in time Barack Obama leads Hillary Clinton 1,611 to 1,480. Unlike their Republican opponent John McCain, there’s still work to be done. In order to secure the nomination at this point in time the Democratic candidates need at least 2,025 to win.
Unfortunately for those of us who lack the patience to see who gets there first, we have a long time to wait before the current numbers even move. The next time primary polls are set to take votes won’t be until April 22nd in the great state of Pennsylvania. According to CNN.com’s poll of 500 respondents, Clinton is projected to win over Obama 45% to 35% with a margin of error of plus or minus 4.4. If this is the case then we can see Clinton feasibly walking off with the miniscule amount of delegates that Pennsylvania has.
The scene in Pennsylvania itself should be interesting to watch however. According to CNN, there have been recent attempts to reform healthcare in the state. With this in mind we can see that it would present an opportunity for both Obama and Clinton to once again pit their healthcare plans against each other. With that as one of Hillary’s strong points it’s no surprise that CNN’s polls predict that she may come out a winner.
Also we see Pennsylvania hosts one of the largest elderly populations in the nation second only to Florida. This may be one of the reasons why there is a rising demand for healthcare reform. Whatever the case, this is a demographic that both candidates will have to appeal to heavily if they want to pull off a win in this state. It is also possible that healthcare will be the main issue which decides who will take the delegates in Pennsylvania.
There are other interesting things besides those that have to relate to the great state of Pennsylvania. Firstly, it’s known that the residents in central Pennsylvania oppose gun control laws and hold strong religious values. These are two traditional mainstays of the conservative wing. Other fun facts from past elections include the fact that Pennsylvania has been won by the Democratic consistently for the past four elections. Also, in 2004, Kerry won a close race against Bush in Pennsylvania edging him out 51% to 48.5%.

Factors in Voting

According to the chapter called “What Determines the Vote?” (Controversies in Voting Behavior), there are three basic orientations that determines who a person votes for. These are decisions by party, by issues, or by the candidate factor. Realignment and dealignment theories attempt to explain the decrease in party voting. Issue voting is considered to be the most rational and appropriate, but especially in primaries the public is often ignorant of issue differences between the candidates. Candidate voting is “seen as less appropriate than issue voting” (Niemi, p.143), however, it has had considerable effect in past presidential elections and can be observed in the current presidential election.
According to the authors, the elections of the 70’s and 80’s involved candidate factors in voting outcome. This can work in a positive or negative direction. For example, Carter’s victory in 1976 was based on the public’s belief in his integrity and honesty after the Watergate scandal. The candidate factor worked against him when the public began to question his competence in foreign affairs, and he lost re-election. In many situations the candidate factor, especially in terms of qualities the public wants in their image of a president, can take dominance over differences on issues. This was especially obvious in the election and re-election of Ronald Reagan.
In the current Democratic primary, the public seems less focused on issue differences between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, and more focused on character differences. Although Democratic strategists try to educate the public on the differences between the candidates, more attention in the news is focused on their character and personal style. Clinton is critiqued for being too staged and too entangled into the established political system. Her supporters focus on her experience as the strength of her character appeal. Obama is seen as the candidate of change, specifically against the current political system. His character is described as a motivational speaker and an appealing presence. Critics of Obama focus on how his character appeal should not be basis for becoming president.
There may be many reasons why American elections are increasingly becoming candidate focused. It is more than just party dealignment and public ignorance on issues, it seems to have more to do with campaign advertising strategies that focus on qualities and attributes that are appealing to the public. These character qualities bring a sense of psychological connection or comfort, especially in terms of confidence. In this primary battle between Clinton and Obama, the focus has mainly been on the quality of experience verses integrity. In public opinion that favor Clinton’s experience, the voters seem less concerned with her integrity and other character traits. Obama’s supporters admire that he is honest and trust that he will follow through on changes that would benefit people.

New York's "Mr. Clean" gets Dirty!

Oh New York New York...always famous in so many ways. The month of February featured New York as Superbowl Superstars and the month March follows up with the State sex scandal. Unlike last month where Eli Manning and the Giants were the envy of the nation for their prestigious titles as Superbowl Champions, this month, Eliot Spitzer has become the shame and ebbarrasment of the state because of his link to a glorified prostitution ring.

Eliot Spitzer came into office as the New York Governer being proclaimed to be "Mr. Clean." He was elected by a large majority of New York voters, a first in the history of the state. His major platform was based mainly on cleaning up New York, from crime to public works. Spitzer had only been in office for 16 months before he managed to ruin his political career for good. He has been identified as "Client 9" on the client list from the Emperor's Club prostitution ring. The prostitution ring is a high class agency with an elite client list, with others like Spitzer. The girls are exquisite, the services are expensive, and the arrangements are secret. But apparently not too secret because law enforcement caught on to him. Spitzer went the full nine yards for this prostiture, brought her in from out of state and floated the entire trip by moving money around to multiple accounts before delivering payment. The entire engagement was expensive and erotic, and hopefully for Spitzer, that one night of sex with a prostitute was worth the downfall of his entire political career.

Spitzer has not yet been charged with anything yet, but the scandal has tainted his political career beyond reproach. He has issued public statements to the press, apologizing to his wife and family for putting shaming them in front of the nation and bringing repose upon their family. "I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family," Spitzer said. He has yet to make any claims about his actions and only apologizes for the damage done to his family by the accusations.Opponents say that if he does not step down voluntarily, that he will have impeachment charges brought against him. Many feel he cannot be trusted and that the state of New York will be willing to trust him enough to follow him. If Spitzer is removed from office, his arch rical, Democratic Lieutenant Government David Patterson would move into office. He would be the first black governer of New York in the history of the state. Could this change in the office of New York be a preface to the upcoming Presidential election? With a powerful black man in office in New York, the public might see no problem with another powerful black man being in office for the country!

Seems like a running trend lately, to take personal sexual antics into the public forum. You have to think,if we elect these people into office and they are careless enoiugh to make a huge mistake like this...were they really the best person for that job? Although some say that a politician's personal life is that of their own, but it really does take a shot at their moral characther. Do we want someone with a severe lack or moral charachter and a complete disregard for marital fidelity and family values running a state? I feel most would say no.

If New York went from Frebruary's football phenomenons to March's prostitution patrons, who knows what excitement the month of April will bring!


Information based on:
Amy Westfeldt. NY governor linked to prostitution ring. Yahoo.com Online News. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080310/ap_on_re_us/spitzer_prostitution. Monday, March 200th, 2008.

Al Gore to Decide Obama v. Clinton?

While trying to decide what to blog about I came across an interesting opinion on how the decision between Obama and Clinton is going to be decided. This article wasn't posted on CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, or any other mainstream American news source, it came from the BBC. That's right, the British Broadcasting Corporation. It's actually where I get most of my American politics news these days because I'm so fed up with American news stations.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, the BBC predicts a simple, and historical, reason for Superdelegates not to be picking sides in large amounts yet. That reason is none other than everyone's favorite environmental guru, Al Gore. Thanks to the debate in the 2000 election between George W Bush and Al Gore over the popular vote Democrats are hesitant to leave the decision in anyone's hands but the masses. At this point Obama still leads the way by a slim margin of 13.6 million to 13.3 million. There is not long to go in the race, but with states like Pennsylvania left there is still enough time for Clinton to pull the popular vote back to her side. So while the Clinton camp will continue to say that the size of the states matters more than the popular vote, you can be sure that as soon as she has 1 more popular vote than Obama she will have a new battle cry for the nomination push, "We lead the popular vote!"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7287595.stm

-Andrew

The Fate of the Federalists?

The Republican Party finds itself at a crossroads. The Party received an electoral beating in 2006. Former Florida Governor Jeb Bush, brother of the President, suggested at a recent conservative conference that Republicans lost the 2006 congressional elections because they abandoned their principles of limited government and fiscal responsibility. The reasons for the Republican rut are self-evident. The way forward for the Republican Party in devising solutions to stave off future, perhaps more permanent, political setbacks is not as clear. The Iraq War is unquestioningly an albatross upon Republicans. The war alone, however, does not represent the whole of the problem. Republicans disagree about a myriad of issues: social, economic, and constitutional. The war in Iraq, and the war on terrorism is a policy area where Republicans generally find common ground with one another.

The War of 1812 was one of the single greatest wounds to the Federalist Party. Being on the politically disadvantageous side of the conflict, the Federalist Party, in the words of Paul F. Boller Jr.,: “thoroughly discredited, declined into a querulous and disaffected minority with little clout in politics except in a few isolated regions in the country.” By the presidential election of 1820, The Federalist Party had essentially died. David Boaz, in his piece, “A Republican Party for the Future,” put forth a political framework for the re- emergence of the Republican Party, so as to avoid a Federalist-type fate:

"As Republicans start to develop a strategy for 2008 and beyond, they should remember that lots of Americans don't like big spending and nanny statism. In the most recent poll that asked the question, 64 percent of voters said that they prefer smaller government with fewer services and lower taxes, while only 22 percent would rather see a more active government with more services and higher taxes."

"In a new Zogby poll, fully 59 percent of respondents said they're "fiscally conservative and socially liberal." That's a majority for a modern Republican Party. Republicans need to look to the future: Younger voters are more likely to be libertarian, more likely to accept gay marriage, and more likely to have voted Democratic in 2006."

"Republicans need to reach them before the Democrats lock them in. They can do that with an optimistic, inclusive message of liberating people from the dead hand of the federal bureaucracy—a smaller and less intrusive federal government, encouragement of enterprise and economic growth, a government that respects but doesn't embrace religion, and a de-escalation of the culture wars."

The party of Lincoln will almost certainly not go the way of the Whigs, the party it replaced in the American political landscape. The Republican Party enjoyed a long stretch of electoral success in the 1980’s and 1990’s. Republican strategists concur that it can achieve success once more by returning to principles and ideals that Republican voters feel strongly and passionately about, while at the same time finding innovative ways in which to reach out to Independents. Some argue that Senator McCain is the Party’s best, last, and perhaps greatest hope in attracting coveted Moderates and Independents in what is a difficult election cycle for Republicans generally. The Senator’s reputation of reaching out across the partisan divide could signal that Republican voters prize electability over complete philosophical concurrence.

Still, the Republican Party has a tough fight ahead. Whatever decisions it now makes as a Party, the outcome of those decisions might not help to advance the Party’s political prospects in the near term of the current election cycle. As Dr. Bruce Larson explained to this writer:

"Fairly or unfairly, voters tend to vote on peace and prosperity, both of which have diminished under the GOP watch. The very troubled economy and the horrendously managed—some would also say mistakenly conceived—war in Iraq has the potential to make the GOP the minority party for many years to come. Republicans have nearly a zero chance of winning back the House or Senate, making the presidency the Party’s only hope. "

The Republican Party can almost certainly avoid the fate of the Federalist Party - if they listen to the echoes of the past.

http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=7544

By Ryan Christiano

There Could Be Blood -Team B

The fierce battle over what to do about the Democratic Party’s delegates in Michigan and Florida reminds one of the strange circumstances surrounding the state of Indiana during the otherwise uneventful presidential election of 1816.

In 1816 a swirl of controversy surrounded the state of Indiana. In 2008, the states of Florida and Michigan find themselves in the midst of a not all-together dissimilar kind of electoral nightmare. The Democratic National Committee had stripped both states of their delegates after the state parties moved up their primaries before the 5th of February, in violation of Party rules, to be competitive in this year's unusual presidential primary cycle. At the time, few envisioned that Michigan and Florida delegates would actually matter in the end. Of course, no one could have imagined that Senator Obama and Senator Clinton would be locked in one of the closest contests in presidential primary history. Every delegate counts. Except for the delegates of Florida and Michigan, that is. At least for the time being.

Now it appears highly unlikely that either Senators Clinton or Obama will be able to win the magic number of 2,025 delegates—the number needed to clinch the Democratic Party nomination. If Michigan and Florida were to come back into play, however, the nomination could theoretically be clinched by one of the contenders. Senator Clinton won overwhelmingly in both states. The Senator from New York received fifty percent of the vote in Florida, and fifty-five percent of the vote in the Michigan primary. Here’s the rub: Senator Obama never even appeared on the ballot in Michigan’s January 15th primary. Senator Edwards and he withdrew their names from the state’s ballot after Michigan violated Party rules. Senator Clinton kept her name on the Michigan ballot. Senators Obama and Clinton both agreed not to campaign in Florida. Senator Clinton did hold a victory rally in the state as the election results came in.

The way forward regarding the fate of delegates from the two states is murky, to say the very least. Perhaps predictably, what should be done come Convention time this summer with Florida's and Michigan’s delegates depends on which candidate you’re backing. Clinton supporters, along with her campaign, argue that excluding the delegates would disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters who have a fundamental right to have their voices heard, and their votes counted. The Obama campaign, and his supporters, contend that it comes down to an issue of fairness. They argue that the rules of the game were perfectly clear before the game commenced, and that it is not fair to change the rules in the middle of the game.

It has become increasingly clear that something might have to be done to settle the dispute that threatens to do great harm to what otherwise could be a very good Democrat year. Suggestions range from ‘do-over’ primary elections in both states during the summer to maintaining the status quo. The 'do-over' primary proposal has caused a considerable amount of controversy in and of itself. Who would finance such an effort? Would the taxpayers in the respective two states be forced to shoulder the financial burden of holding a second primary election, or would the national party pay for such an endeavor? Would Senator Clinton be at a distinct disadvantage in being forced to attempt to win both states for a second time? The answers remain unclear. Several high ranking Party officials have now called for a meeting of party elders in an attempt to broker some sort of settlement that would be satisfactory to all sides involved in the delegate dispute.

In 1816, Secretary of State James Monroe walked to an easy electoral victory in the presidential election. The Federalists were all but dead politically, and not able to muster much of a fight. Monroe and his running mate won one hundred and eighty three electoral votes. The Federalists only won thirty-four electoral votes. Controversy thundered like a summer storm inside Congress when the electoral vote counting commenced. A New York Congressman threw a wrench into the proceeding when he vigorously protested the inclusion of Indiana’s electoral delegates because the state had not been accepted into the Union at the time of the election. The Senate and the House engaged in a long, bitter, and contentious debate over whether Indiana had been a state after it had adopted its constitution, but prior to Congress admitting Indiana into the Union, by formal proclamation in December. The debate languished on until the House Speaker announced that the House of Representatives: “Had not seen it necessary to come to any resolution on the subject”. The decision was to not make a decision. The electoral counting continued and Indiana’s electoral votes were counted for the victorious President Monroe and Vice-President Tompkins.

The Democratic Convention this summer could be the best show, or showdown, in town.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/14/michigan.florida.voters/

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/washingtondc/la-na-campaign7mar07,1,2111365.story

By Ryan Christiano

Watch your mouth I am running for president!

“We are republicans and don’t propose to leave our party and identify ourselves with the party whose antecedents have been Rum, Romanism and Rebellion” (Boller 149). The previously stated words of the Revered Samuel D. Burchard regarding the election of 1884 and the republican nomination of James G Blaine proved to be disastrous to Blaine’s campaign, and ultimately cost him the presidency. The words themselves alienated the Irish catholic population of New York City (a group whose vote was seen as essential to Blaine’s winning the presidency), but the most damaging effect of revered Burchard’s word’s, was Blaine’s decision not to address them “He made no reference to the words”(Boller 150). The presidential campaigns book by Paul F. Boller Jr. states that “Irish-American voters were angered by Burchard’s insult to their faith” (Boller, 150), and because of Blaine’s decision not to address the statement or his oversight concerning their offensive undertones, cost him the election. Damaging statements made during presidential campaigns continues to be an issue in 2008 as well. Radio host Bill Cunningham made controversial statements during a McCain rally about democratic hopeful Barak Obama ““Now we have a hack, Chicago-style Daley politician who is picturing himself as change. When he gets done with you, all you're going to have in your pocket is change” http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/26/politics/main3880075.shtml. During this rally Cunningham referred to Obama by his middle name Hussein three times, implying some sort of Middle Eastern connection. Presidential hopeful John McCain took a different approach to Cunningham’s remarks than Blaine took to Burchard’s remarks. McCain decided to distance himself from the remarks of Mr. Cunningham’s, and apologize for them before the reporters had the chance to attack him for the statements made at his rally “I did not know about these remarks, but I take responsibility for them. I repudiate them,” he said. “My entire campaign I have treated Senator Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton with respect. I will continue to do that throughout this campaign.” In choosing to distance himself and apologize for the remarks made by someone speaking at his rally, McCain didn’t have to suffer the same fate as James G. Blaine.

Almost time to pick a best friend...

It's almost that time of the campaign, for McCain it is time to think about it now and the Dems can keep dreaming, when the nominee gets to choose who they are picking to be their best friend for the next 4-8 years. It hasn't always been the decision of the nominee who got to be their second in command. Way back in 1797 President John Adams got stuck with his worst enemy for four years, Thomas Jefferson. In other elections the VP was picked based on who could deliver votes, who was the "next big thing," or as a thank you to a political machine that has helped out the party.

In the past Vice Presidents have come from 22 states, and one from the District of Colombia, compared to the Presidents who have come from only 20 states (http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194032.html). It is not surprising to see that the most total (both Presidents and Vice Presidents combined) have come from the key states of New York, home of some of the biggest political machines, Virginia, believed to the birthplace of the nation, Ohio, a key battleground state year in and year out, and Massachusetts, home of modern Liberalism. Looking at this these numbers two candidates for Vice President, Mitt Romney of MAssachusetts and Hillary Clinton of New York. This is of course should Clinton lose the Presidental nomination.

These two come from states rich in past executive branch members. They are also from key states for their party. For the Democrats New York is a delegate rich state that Clinton would obviously carry for the ticket. On the other hand should Mitt Romney be able to deliver the traditionally blue state of Massachusetts for the Republican party it would be a huge blow to the heart of the liberal movement. Clinton also brings a very good machine along with her that can help any ticket she is a part of. Should these two end up being the picks for Vice President it would mean a highly anticipated Obama/Clinton ticket. Can they work together or will these two strong wills be too much for each other? Some other possible vice presidential nominees include, but are not limited to Barack Obama (should he fail to clinch the Presidential nomination) and John Edwards for the Dems and for the Republicans Mike Huckabee and Ron Paul. What the outcome will be is still in the air and seems to be a much more distant announcement for the Democrats who are locked into a bloody battle that seems will last until the convention.


-Andrew

The Link Between Bloody Kansas and Iraq

Other than the spilling of blood there are very few links that can be drawn between Bloody Kansas in the 1850s and the war in Iraq happening as we speak. However, one of the links that can be made is the campaign strategy of both James Buchanan and Barack Obama. For Buchanan in the election of 1856 the big issue was if states entering the Union should be free or slave states, in the 2008 election Iraq remains a major issue.


One thing that candidates try to avoid is a trail of strong positions on major topics. James Buchanan was out of the country for the debate on Bloody Kansas and therefore had no position either way on the issue. Neither the Southern or Northern states could oppose him on this issue like other candidates and James Buchanan emerged as the winner in the election.

For candidates like Hillary Clinton there is a history of a vote in Congress for going to war with Iraq. It is hard to shake off that vote and be the candidate for change and an exit from Iraq when this vote looms over he head. Obama on the other hand has been able to state that he opposed the war in Iraq and never voted for it since he wasn't in Congress when the vote came up (http://www.barackobama.com/issues/iraq/) . In the recent campaign adds for the Democratic nomination Clinton tried to portray herself as the experienced candidate who can best protect the nation. Obama came back with an add almost exactly like Clinton's but only stating he was the candidate with the judgement to protect the nation (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irNLgCP37m0&feature=related). The only thing left to see is if the strategy works this time around.

-Andrew

The Rupublican "W"

With the primaries for the Democratic party still pretty much up in the air, one thing is now certain. John McCain is the Republican candidate for the 2008 elections. Now, the Republicans are pitching John McCain as a chance to have a “Bush” third term. If Republican's want things to stay the way they currently are, John McCain is their man. So the question becomes, when you're in the middle of a war, should you change horses mid-stream? This question came up 1864 when Abe Lincoln was losing the civil war. Even his own party had abandoned him. As George Bancroft is quoted as saying in Paul F. Boller Jr.'s, Presidential Campaigns, “The outcry against the conduct of the war is deep and unanimous. All blame Lincoln; all in all parties. I have not heard one who does not.” The push in 1864 was to get Lincoln out and someone else in who seemed more competent. The only thing that saved Lincoln was the dramatic turn around in the war 4 months before the election. This secured his reelection at the last minute. Today, it seems like everyone is ready to bail on Bush, and changing horses mid-stream seems like the way to go since the horse we're riding is sinking into a recession. The problem for McCain is that, unlike Lincoln, it does not seem as though this war or this recession is going to make a dramatic turnaround any time soon. We then have to look and think, are there enough strong right wing Republicans to bring home the “W” for McCain?

Election Scandals and Smear Campaigns from 1884 and 2008

“Rake, Libertine, father of a bastard, a gross and licentious man, a moral leper a man stained with disgusting infamy” (Boller 149). These words written by the New York Sun and the New York Tribune in 1884 are indicative of the mudslinging and smear campaign instituted by the Republican Party when the Grover Cleveland illegitimate child scandal rocked the presidential campaign of 1884. The previously stated smear campaign instituted by the Republican Party was designed to discredit Democratic hopeful Grover Cleveland, by debunking his truthful and honest persona (which the majority of the American population associated with him at that time). In this election the smear campaign proved ineffective because the Democratic party (After Cleveland admitted the accusations were true) decided to redirect the campaigns focus, by stating that “the real issue of the campaign was public integrity, not private misconduct (Boller 148). The illegitimate child accusation or scandal has proven, for the most part, to be ineffective in the 21st century with a bit of an exception in the 2000 Republican primaries. In 2000 during the Republican primaries in South Carolina the Bush campaign decided to accuse presidential hopeful John McCain of fathering an “illegitimate black child”, after Bush lost to McCainin the NewHampshire primary. http://www.sepiamutiny.com/sepia/archives/000311.html. In this instance the accusations were without merit (McCain had adopted the child in question from Bangladesh and Mother Theresa). This accusation hurt the McCain campaign in 2000 and was a contributing factor in McCain’s loss of the Republican nomination. In 2008 McCain has actually hired some of those same people responsible for the stories concerning his “illegitimate black child “in 2000 to win the vote in South Carolina. http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080128/banks
It seems to me that both Cleveland and McCain know how to turn a scandal into a win.

Dirty Tricks Within Parties

In class this past week, we learned about antipathy within parties and how it was prevalent during the 2000 presidential campaign. For the most part, when one thinks of antipathy between candidates, they assume the candidates are of opposite parties, rather than within the same party. In 2000, in South Carolina, the Bush campaign was supposedly behind a smear campaign against McCain. McCain was accused of fathering a black child, when in reality he and his wife adopted a Bengali baby from Mother Theresa, in hopes of the girl receiving the best medical attention here in the United States.

The allegations spread were absolutely untrue and damaged his campaign in South Carolina greatly. In an article about parenting, John McCain is interviewed as saying “As you know she's Bengali, and very dark skinned. A lot of phone calls were made by people who said we should be very ashamed about her, about the color of her skin. Thousands and thousands of calls from people to voters saying "You know the McCains have a black baby" I believe that there is a special place in hell for people like those.”

In McCain's current campaign, his camp is quick to dispel any additional hurtful remarks or slander. Recently, in South Carolina, a flyer is circulating newspapers with a disgraceful cartoon, shown below, that "accuses McCain of collaborating with his captors and betraying other POWs" (TPM Election Central). This is most likely not the result of another GOP candidate's campaign, but that of Vietnam veterans against McCain. The article states "the fact that the McCain camp has moved so aggressively to publicize and push back against the flyer suggests that the McCain campaign is taking a new approach in a state where such dirty tricks stopped his campaign in 2000". Dirty tricks, by any organization, in this campaign are not hindering his status as front runner, these new approaches must be working well.

Sources Used:

Sargent, Greg. Election Central, Talking Points Memo. "Vicious South Carolina Flyer attacks McCain's Vietnam Service Jan 18 2008.

Interview with John McCain through DadMag.com "http://www.dadmag.com/archive/060400jmccain.php"

Sedition and Patriot Acts: Protecting or Violating our Freedom?

The Sedition Act of 1798 and The USA Patriot Act of 2001 were both wartime measures that obstructed civil liberties for the ['so called' in reference to Sedition] sake of fighting the war. In regards to the Sedition Act, the first amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press were severely violated in order to suppress opposition from the Republican Party.

Some of the Sedition Act's principles relate to the Patriot Act, such as increases in governmental powers for the sake of the country at a time of war and also liberties being infringed upon. The Patriot Act “expanded the government's powers in anti-terrorism investigations” (NPR.ORG). The Patriot Act allows for stronger governmental influence to detect and diminish internal and external terrorism. NPR.Org and the ACLU provides a list of controversial topics in the Patriot Act which includes information sharing, roving wiretaps, access to records, foreign intelligence, ‘sneak and peak’ searches and also material support. The Patriot Act was constructed to protect against not only international terrorism, but domestic terrorism as well. These measures listed before can violate normal citizen’s liberties by tracking their activity through databases. Lax restrictions on wiretapping could violate the innocent’s privacy rights, and ‘sneak and peak’ searches do not require immediate warrants therefore the party being searched is not notified until after the search has already been performed. The decrease in restrictions for terrorism investigations leads to questionable violations of civil liberties.

The Sedition Act “banned the publishing of false or malicious writings against the government and the inciting of opposition to any act of Congress or the president” (Britannica). The Federalists targeted “newspapers, but its real target was the opposition Republican party- for newspapers were the crucial organs of parties, their voice boxes and lungs” (JSR 104). Any sort of opposition, verbal or written, against the Federalists would result in fines and imprisonment. This undoubtedly violated rights of free speech and press, not for the safety of the country, but rather to benefit the Federalist Party.

The Patriot Act relates to our readings in class on Sedition in Jefferson's Second Revolution, because they were both enacted during a time of conflict and are questionable in upholding personal liberties guaranteed by the Constitution. Many can argue that these rights protected the safety and order of the United States, however others could argue that personal liberties were jeopardized or overlooked for the benefit of the country during a time of war.

-Diana Davino

Sources:

Abramson, Larry and Maria Godoy. "The Patriot Act: Key Controversies". 14 Feb 2006. NPR.org.

"Alien and Sedition Acts". Encyclopedia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopedia Britannica Online. 3 March 2008. <http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9005728>.

Dunn, Susan. Jefferson's Second Revolution. 2004. Houghton Mifflin Company.

"How the USA Patriot Act Redefines "Domestic Terrorism"". ACLU. 6 Dec 2002. ACLU.org

BACK TO IRAQ WE GO

With republicans supporting the war and democrats strongly opposing it, it is no surprise that much attention is in being refocused to this issue. However discussing the war in Iraq is like a game of tug of war with Senator McCain pledging to see this battle through while Senator Obama would rather bring this combat to an end. Whether our troops stay and continue to fight what seems to be an endless war or a plan devised to bring them home as quickly as possible, we can all agree that this has been a financially burdensome battle. The government continues to spend enormous amounts on this overseas entanglement and who knows what the total will be at the end whenever that may come. So with the race for presidency intensifying we all want to know in which direction will these prospective candidates lead our country. Through CNN’s Chief Political Analyst Bill Schneider, we are more knowledgeable on the intentions of two of the forerunners of 2008 race for presidency, who seem to have developed quite a distaste for each other’s respective position on many issues mainly the Iraq war.

If we endorse Senator Obama, his platform as follows: I intend to bring [the war in Iraq] to an end so that we can actually start going after al Qaeda in Afghanistan and in the hills of Pakistan like we should have been doing in the first place.”

While Senator Mc Cain believes, “If we left Iraq, there's no doubt that al Qaeda would then gain control of Iraq and then pose a threat to the United States of America.”

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/schneider.iraq/index.html


http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/schneider.iraq/index.html#cnnSTCVideo

The Gloves come out and the Punches Fly

As the race for the presidency in 2008 gets closer, debates are heating up with candidates attacking their strongest opponent. We have seen the Clinton and Obama debates but the constant interaction between Senator McCain and Senator Obama are proving to be an interesting clash of ideas and fiery words.
According to an article on CNN’s website, Senator McCain’s focus is along the issues of the War on Iraq. He wishes to point out that the democrats’ lack of support, particularly Senator Obama’s criticism of inefficiency of the military surge in Iraq. Its looks as if Senator McCain is suggesting that Senator Obama’s has shifted his view of military insurgence in Iraq. However, Senator Obama is firm in defending his position maintaining that he intends to produce resolutions that drive the country forward contrary to Senator Mc Cain’s position. Senator McCain’s fuel came from a statement made in a debate with Senator Clinton wherein Senator Obama proposed that in the event that Al Queada establishes a base in Iraq, the U.S. with respond with measures that will protect “the American homeland and our interests abroad." Senator McCain would later have this response : "For Sen. Obama to say he would consider going back militarily if al Qaeda was in Iraq when Al Qaeda is in Iraq is probably one of the more remarkable statements that have been made on American national security policy."
To counteract Senator McCain comment Senator Obama had this to say "I have some news for John McCain. There was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."
With our ongoing class discussions of the election of 2004 who must speculate whether the Mc Cain vs. Obama is a continuance of 2004s’ showdown between Bush and Kerry.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/mccain.democrats/index.html

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/29/mccain.democrats/index.html#cnnSTCVideo