Presidential Candidates' Kids

The first look into a life of a senator’s daughter and a potential first daughter of the United States America. Meghan McCain’s blog is not your typical politico destination. Rather, it’s an insightful look at John McCain’s family, offering an out look at the life of a senior citizen making a run at the White House. It was started by the Senator’s 23-year-old daughter, it was designed to help break down popular opinion that McCain is out of touch with young voters.

Throughout history we have seen presidential candidate’s kids getting involved with their campaign. In the 2004 elections we had seen it with Kerry’s daughters, Vanessa and Alexandra. We had seen them on the road with Kerry quite a bit throughout his campaign across the country. One of their biggest speeches that both the daughters had made was about their fathers values to voters in Wisconsin.

Presidential kids have always been face with a lot of spot light. When they’re going to hang out with their friends or just going to get some coffee. The light is always going to be on them and no matter what they say or what they do. They will be judged upon what happens before or during their candidacy. So I feel that because there is so much weight put onto them, they should just enjoy the spot light responsible that has been put onto them. It only lasts so long and to have such a support for a family member means a lot to many people when looking into their families values.

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