No More Private Jets? CEO's might have to fly economy class?

White House has been talking on bailouts for weeks now. With Ford, GM, and Chrysler all struggling the government is drafting bills to come to their aid. Senator Dodd, who is the Chairman of the Banking Committee is also proposing that GM CEO be removed as part of the deal. The deal would also eliminate all chartered or private aircraft, no bonuses for executives, not "golden parachutes", and no stockholder dividends.

As much as this article makes it seem like Chris Dodd and democrats are really attacking the CEO's and big executives within the auto industry we all know that these people will still be living the same life style they always have. Funded by the taxpayers this time. AIG executives have been seen flying private jets, staying in fancy spas, and renting out large banquets for parties.

Do these CEO's feel any guilt in having the hard working American tax payer, pay for luxuries most have never even experienced? Our politicians should force all three CEO's to step down. American car companies have not been investing in the future for a long time. They have been concerned with their SUV's, Trucks, and high margin vehicles. Forget about the hybrids, electric, and solar powered ideas of the future.

What kind of example does this give to companies in other industries? The banking industry had millions of peoples life savings, retirements, college savings, and mortgages. But do we really need to save the Ford Explorer? Companies have failed before because of poor decisions, and new and better ones have risen up. Whats to say someone else won't step up?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/09/business/09auto.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1&hp

First One Hundred Days

The article I chose is about Obama wanting to make a speech in an Islamic country within his first one hundred days as president. Obama's goal in doing this is to get on better terms with the large Muslim population of the world. I think this is definitely a good idea, especially since the US is definitely not known for its excellent foreign relations. One of Obama's many goals for his term is to better relations with other countries, and this would definitely be a step in the right direction as long as his speech goes over well and is accepted by the Muslims and does not further alienate them from America. The major debate in the article is where his speech should be made, since there are a variety of countries where Islam is very popular. The article mentions Cairo in Egypt as the prime spot for this great speech to bring the world closer together. I think going to the middle east would be better than Egypt though. We clearly have more problems getting along over there and it would seem like we were really trying to make an effort with our direct former enemies if we went the middle east. Egypt seems like we are trying to get as close as we can to the problem spot without actually going in it. Although I think it is a good idea to better our relations with the rest of the world, and certainly starting that within the first one hundred days sets it as a priority, Obama should choose his location wisely in order to have the most positive impact.

article found at: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/04/us/politics/04web-cooper.html

James Jones Jr. James Jones: Obama's National Security Surprise

Barack Obama has recently made a shocking decision by choosing James Jones as his national security adviser. Jones led the marines from 1999 into the beginning of the Iraq war in 2003. Many are saying this is more of the same old policy from the Bush and Clinton years. But I think this is a good move because he needs experience on his staff. It is important that he doesn't get get new faces in Washington but people with experience at handling these issues. Jones is a capable adviser and was on of the men who oversaw the beginning of the Iraqi invasion. Jones has a deep understanding of the military and military operations. He is a war veteran, with many medals of honor, but most importantly he doesn't have any political affiliation. So he will be more likely to worry about bureaucracy and worry more about what is best for the country. Jones also has a great relationship with Clinton and many other new members of Obama's new cabinet. So overall I think this is a good decision for Obama because he chose a man who knows what he is doing from experience in the job and is still up to the task of handling Washington politics. This is an important decision because of the volatile situation not only in Iraq but also in Iran. Jones will have to deal with ending the war in Iraq and rising conflict with the Irani government. His advisement on how we handle the situation could decide wether we move into another foreign war or not.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1862911,00.html?cnn=yes

Obama’s Team Isn’t Exactly a Break With the Past

This article published in the NY Times is writer Ben Stein's thoughts on Obama's picks for administration positions along with his line by line spending reduction for day one. Stein feels as though going through the budget line by line is not only impossible because of the length of this document, but feels that a reduction in spending in an economic time like this could be dangerous. He compares Obama to Jimmy Carter, and how he went line by line and not only wasted a lot of his time as leader but also had results that nobody wants to repeat. Stein was also concerned with the reduction in military spending because "It’s important to weigh how dangerous a world we live in before reducing funds for an already inadequate military." Based on my understanding our military is far from inadequate, and still is the only super power in the world. Of course, there have been assumptions made of the balance of power theory and how China, Brazil or another up and coming nation will soon take over as super power of the world. But don't we already dump more money into military programs than any other nation by a large margin? The military is causing our national debt to become greater and greater everyday, with about $12 billion going to Iraq each month. As for Stein's feeling of Obama picking a no-change possible administration, I think Obama is the one is going to be setting the tone. By putting previous Clinton and one Bush member in his office I think they will be relied on for their experience and not looked to for leadership. Obama will be the one shaping where our country is headed and hopefully the experiences of these administration members will be able to advice Obama in the best ways to get this done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/30/business/30every.html?_r=1&ref=politics

Don't be Depressed, It's not 1929

Lately, the news has been streaming with headlines comparing the recession to the Great Depression. The recession we are now facing is worst economic times since the Great Depression, but it is not comparable to the Great Depression. In the 1920-30's, the economy lacked shock absorbers, such as Social Security and deposit insurance, which now disable the economy from becoming as bad as the old times. The Great Depression suffered unemployment rates up to 25 percent, while it is now at 7.6 percent. Also, during the Great Depression around 4000 banks failed, compared to 19 current banks that failed. As the numbers show, this recession can not be compared to the Great Depression. The article brings up some good questions to think about: Do you think that Obama is the modern day FDR, and will fix the problems of our country? Will the current recession become even worse and then comparable to the numbers of the Great Depression? I think that Obama and the other leaders of the world will work as one to get out of the economic recession...it may take time, but nonetheless I don't feel as if this current economic situation can get as bad as the state of the Great Depression.

Article:
http://www.newsweek.com/id/170340

Will Clinton be Obama's frenemy of State?

This article brings up a question that is on many people's minds - would Hillary Clinton make an effective secretary of state? Several positive and a few negative qualities of Clinton are examined in this piece. First, it is important for the secretary of state to be close to the President. Clinton and Obama seem to have worked out their differences, but after the historic primary race, there is bound to be friction between them. The presence of Bill Clinton also raises questions. Given his love for politics, he is bound to influence his wife, Hillary, along the way.
On the other hand, Hillary Clinton's experience with foreign nations could be a valuable asset to the Obama administration. However, this is a double-edged sword because with so much foreign policy experience, Clinton is likely to have her own adgenda when it comes to foreign issues. This would detract from her loyalty to the Obama.
Taking these arguments into accound, I don't think Hillary Clinton would make a great secretary of state for several reasons. First, there is too much tension between her and Obama from the start. These issues need to be resolved prior to Obama taking office. Second, Bill Clinton will always be there no matter what. He is too influencial to simply stay on the sidelines and watch Hillary's every move. I am sure he will have a lot of influence on Hillary behind the scences. Nontheless, the only way to find out whether she will make a good secretary of state is to wait and see what happens. Will her own adgenda or Bill Clinton detract from her loyalty to the President? Only one way to find out...

Here is the link to the article:
Will Clinton be Obama's Frenemy of State?

Obama's Stimulus Package

Obama has a lot of lofty plans for his administration already. According to the article, he has plans of a $300 billion stimulus package and wants to save 2.5 million jobs. Also, even though he talked of repealing the tax cuts for people earning over $250,000, now he says he will most likely just wait until that plan runs out in 2011. Obama basically wants to have his plan set by the time of his inauguration, if not sooner through working with Bush. I think Obama has the right idea wanting to start his plan as soon as possible to cushion the damage of the state of the economy, but it seems like his has very high expectations for what can be accomplished immediately upon inauguration. I also think it is a good idea to let the tax cut for the wealthy run out rather than try to repeal it; that way he will not alienate conservatives in congress right away and maybe they will be more open to his stimulus package. I think Obama should be less worried about how much the stimulus package will cost and just focus on trying to get the economy back on its feet and try to get people jobs who are out of work.
News that Geithner, the president of the federal reserve bank, would be the treasury secretary boosted the stock market 500 points. I think this is a good sign that Obama is on the right track since he has already had a hand boosting the stock market and he is not even in office yet.
Overall, even though Obama may think he can get his plan going a lot quicker than he really can, I do think he will do a good job in helping the current state of the economy.
Article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/24/us/politics/24transition.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&hp

"Socialism is not the problem"

Steve Chapman, a writer for the Chicago Tribune, explains in this this article that 'socialism' is not Obama's problem, rather his biggest shortcoming is one common to the Democratic Party. The assumption that every problem can be solved by government intervention, and if a little intervention works, than more is better. Chapman uses the example of climate change. Obama is not content to let companies buy and sell the right to pollute. He wants to do more such as reduce carbon emissions by demanding higher fuel economy from automakers, pouring money into clean coal technology, etc. Chapman uses an analogy that any football fan would understand : "It's like the team owner offering the coach a generous new contract if he wins the championship -- and then dictating the starting lineup and the play selection for the entire season" (ie Jerry Jones and the Cowboys). Obama also seems intent on experimenting with policys similar to the style used by his hero FDR. However, FDR's willingness to try things/experimentation created uncertainty which "discouraged businesses from doing what they are supposed to do", in effect prolonging the Great Depression.
I think this article makes a great point by saying that if Obama decides to follow an over-the-top policy structure with a dash of experimentation, then the U.S. could be in for some more rocky economic times. I agree with Chapman that Obama is obviously not a socialist, despite his redistirbution of wealth proposals, but is this direction of BIG government and intervention as well as policy experiments that great of an alternative either. Clearly, I would not want to be in a socialist state with Karl Marx as my leader, but this idea of very large government is closing in on the ideas of Thomas Hobbes.

Iran said to have enough nuclear fuel for one weapon

Article - http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/20/africa/20nuke.php

According to nuclear experts, based on the production levels by Iran in the past they should have enough nuclear material to construct an atomic weapon. However, it should be noted that this material is low-enriched uranium - mostly useless for a conventional atomic weapon. Iran would still need to develop a warhead capable of delivering the payload, as well as enrich the material to weapons grade. Both would be incredibly difficult to succeed, given the country's resources and the fact that it has numerous inspectors within its facilities making sure it does not do exactly this.
Iran has constantly threatened to force these inspectors out, and it will be interesting to see how the Iranian government acts now that Obama is president. Will it attempt to challenge the new President? How should the world respond to a Iran with nuclear capabilities? Both are key questions that could have an enormous impact on the years to come.

Ex-Rivals Stand to Gain From Meeting

My article discusses the details of Senator McCain and President Elect Obama meeting again and having to deal with each other on today's important issues. I found this article very interesting because it dealt with topics of interest and conflict that could only be thought about after the election; neither candidate was planning how they would have to deal with each other once the election was over. Although it was obviously not outlined in the presidential race, Obama and McCain do support each other on many issues, as do many member of Obama's cabinet, and with McCain's political influence stronger than ever they will need him to win important Republican votes in the Senate. I think at this point the unfriendly relationship between McCain and Obama puts Obama in a much worse situation. The article points out that it could be extremely damaging to Obama to have McCain as a critic during the first few months of his presidency. Although Obama won the election, it is as if McCain has more influence over him than ever. This creates a completely different dynamic between the two and it will be interesting to see how Obama deals with it (becuase it is, after all, up to him to deal with it).

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122687265152531765.html

I came across this very interesting article in the newspaper Barron’s, a “financial weekly” from the Wall Street Journal. In it was an open letter from the editors directed to president-elect Barack Obama. The article outlines 8 steps he should take to restore order in the financial markets and bolster the economy. Some of the proposals are interesting, though I certainly have varying opinions as to the effectiveness and overall consequences of a few as well.
Their first proposal calls for president-elect Obama to support another bold stimulus package, one which would cost the American government 100 billion dollars. It is certainly hard to determine whether such government spending would improve the economy. Earlier in the year, Congress supported a 168 billion dollar package, giving American “folks” checks of around $600. However, the stimulus package didn’t set off any large economic activity. But I believe if president-elect Obama were to support another stimulus package, this one would be way more beneficial to the economy. This is simply due to timing. The holiday season is already here, and a few extra hundred dollars in American family’s checking accounts would most certainly recycle directly directly back into the consumer markets, bolstering economic growth and helping large and small businesses.
The second proposal calls for Obama to support Aid for GM and Ford, calling the government to send 25 billion dollars to each corporation which would eventually pay the government a dividend. I think the consequences of these actions could be dangerous. We have already seen the government bailout major insurance corporations like AIG and financial consulting firms like Merrill Lynch. There must be other ways the government can help America’s economic backbone in the automobile industry rather than direct bailouts. Soon all large corporations would become dependent on government bailout money, granting our government unprecedented power and control over huge, public corporations. We are a nation founded upon the economic principle of free trade, private companies, and open markets with as little government interaction as possible. We do not want our government to become too large or powerful. However, I am in favor of this article’s seventh proposal, which calls for changing the fuel-efficiency rules for this nation’s automobile companies. Ford and GM should be able to import their small cars from over-seas so they can maintain the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard, while they work on technologies for alternative fuel vehicles.
I also agree with the article’s proposals to delay tax increases and support legislation that would keep union ballot’s secret. Barack Obama promised to raise taxes on wealthy American’s throughout his campaign. However, I agree with the article in believing such an increase on the wealthy at this point in time, with the economy in its current state, would only hurt attempts to restore it. The wealthy’s money is usually expended into family businesses and public stock, helping create jobs. Yet, I don’t agree with the article when it says to increase tax on gasoline. I believe high prices of gas would only cause panic once again in the economy and would out-weigh the incentives to buy more fuel-efficient vehicles. Lastly, I agree with helping keep union’s ballots secret. Union members should not be influenced in any ways by outside forces to vote for something pertaining to their job. They should be able to vote their conscience and not be intimidated by higher authority. Such legislation would promote union membership and increase jobs in the United States.
I will end this blog with a few simple questions. What do you, the reader, think of these proposals: Will they help our economy or only send it further plunging into recession? Do you agree with my opinions? Are there any steps you think Barack Obama should take that aren’t outlined in the article? Do you think there are steps which were outlined that shouldn’t be taken?

Here is the link to the article
http://online.barrons.com/article/SB122670713307329839.html?mod=b_hpp_9_0002_b_this_weeks_magazine_home_top&page=1

The Early Word: Clinton(s) in Foggy Bottom?

Senator Hillary Clinton may have earned herself a seat as Secretary of State by making peace with President elect Barack Obama. The two had been rivals throughout the primary race and now it appears that Clinton may have a shot at being appointed. I am not sure if this is the best move for president elect Barack Obama. There are many pros and cons to having Senator Hillary Clinton in office with him. With Hillary comes Bill and i am not sure if that is going to help Obama. We have seen Bill Clinton play a major role in senator Hillary Clinton's campaigns and there is no doubt that he will try to do the same if she is appointed as secretary of state. President Elect Obama will be sharing his presidency with his former rival and potentially lose out on some foreign policy ideas he has come up on his own. The two of them had many different viewpoints during the primaries. The two may be coming up with numerous ooposing view points and it will be much harder for president elect Barack Obama to do the things he had been campaigning for. Obama continues to look for staff that will better the morale of the government and hopefully make significant changes on the economy. Hopefully he will make the right decisions when he appoints his staff. Is appointing Senator Hillary Clinton going to work in Barack Obama's favor?

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/11/17/the-early-word-clintons-in-foggy-bottom/

The GOP Future Lies With Republican Governors?

While many are wondering where the future lies for the Republican Party, there are others who say that it lies with the current Republican governors, rather than those in Congress at the moment. Because of the current Democratic majority in the House and Senate, Republican governors are the only people who can propose and implement Republican policies. Mississippi Governor, Haley Barbour, said that, "for American to see that Republican policies work, they're going to see it in states with Republican governors."
It's a pretty accurate statement overall. With the Democrats holding most of the Congressional seats, there won't be as many conservative policies passed. Because the GOP members of Congress won't be able to pass as many Republican-supported bills, the focus will then be forwarded to the Governors. It'll be interesting to see over the next four years, which GOP Governors step up to the plate. Some governors that have been talked about recently as possible presidential candidates in 2012 are Charlie Crist of Florida, Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota and Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, and most noticeably, Sarah Palin of Alaska.
Overall, the Republican party is going to have to be pretty careful over the next few years. They are going to have to make sure and keep the current Republican Congressional and Gubernatorial seats as well as maintain good publicity that will show the public that the Republican Party is what the U.S. needs for a successful future. If they gain the public's trust again, they will be back on track for a possible win in 2012.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/politics/content/shared-gen/ap/General_Election_News/Republican_Governors.html

Barack Obama: FDR, Lincoln, and Jesus, All Rolled Into One!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/16/AR2008111602374.html?hpid=topnews
If one were to watch MSNBC or pick up any relevant news magazine, it would appear that Barack Obama, without spending a single minute in the Oval Office, has already been named the "Greatest President of All Time". It seems that, before even taking office, journalists feel content in proclaiming the president-elect as an amalgamation of some of the most respected presidents in our nation's history.
Reporters have no problem comparing Obama to FDR in terms of handling the economy and the expected impending recession. Apparently, rhetoric and campaign promises are enough to put Obama on equal grounds with FDR himself. Call me crazy, but I fail to see justification for putting Obama on par with the man who is credited with saving us from the Depression, the worst economic quagmire in the history of free-market capitalism, before a single act is handed down from the Obama administration.
When it comes to dealing with the perceived fractured, partisan political state of this nation, journalists are already hailing Obama as a reincarnation of Abe Lincoln himself. This even further enrages me, that before even entering office Obama is already being placed on the same level as the man who overcame neverending barriers and tests to bring together a nation literally at war over ideological differences.
As a man who has great respect for US history, I find it insulting that, while FDR and Lincoln had to prove themselves to the world and overcome incredible odds, Obama is being given a free pass, being elevated to this upper echelon of leaders without even being inaugurated.

The Brilliant Brain Trust

Over the past eight years, the president's cabinet was comprised of a diverse group of men whose top qualities to the president were personal loyalty. The author believes that George Bush couldn't stand to have people smarter than him around him, so he elected the most appealing members to his cabinet. This must change during the upcoming presidency. Barack Obama should put more focus on intellectuals instead of electing the most appealing members to his cabinet. The author lists brilliant men that could effectively make decisions for the presidents cabinet. The problem with these men are that they have some bad qualities. These men have brilliant ideas, but don't have as many friends as some of the other candidates. I think Bush's cabinet somewhat relates to the article on why the best men don't run for presidency. I think Obama's has the possibility to be different though The members of the cabinet are focused on special areas and they don't recieve as much press as the president... so therefore Obama should elect these representatives to his cabinet, despite their personal flaws. America is experiencing some of its worst times as a country, and we need all the intellectual power as possible to figure out the problems that we face. This article brings up some great questions for Barack Obama to think about, such as: Who are more important for solving the current problems, intellects or nice people? Will the cabinet be able to converse effectively if Obama elects a group of arrogant and bigheaded members?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/169174

Palin's 2012 Playbook

There has certainly been a lot of commentary since the election results of Palin running for president in 2012. According to many officials, she actually has a decent chance about getting the nomination. However, she already has some potential competition from South Carolina goovernor Mark Sanford and Louisiana governor Bobby Jindal. If Palin does want this position, however, she has to start planning now. She should be supporting Republican candidates for 2010 and trying to help them fundraise. In addition, Palin has not met the majority of Republican leaders. She needs to get her name out there and make connections with those who have been critiquing her these past few months. Also, she has to make sure to thank those that helped her for this campaign and secure her support for 2012. Another downfall that Palin needs to fix is her becoming a bit of a laughing stock. Publishing an article on why the Republic party failed may be a strong point. Palin also should go on a speaking tour and really get her name and face out there. Not to mention, she will have to start fundraising now if she wants a shot. If Palin wants the Republican nomination, she certainly has her work cut out for her. Does Palin have a chance at winning the nomination? Can she give herself a newfound reputation as a serious politician, or have critics and Tina Fey done too much damage?

http://www.newsweek.com/id/167473/page/2

How McCain lost: Message, funding woes

This article from the USA Today discussed McCain’s campaign as a whole and his overall reasons for losing this election. The article stresses McCain’s decision of selecting Governor Sarah Palin as the Vice Presidential nominee and his announcement that he was going to suspend his campaign to deal with the economic crisis as the two main factors for his ultimate defeat. I personally think the selection of Sarah Palin, although important, does not weigh that much in McCain’s loss to Barack Obama. At times her qualifications did seem questionable, however, within the article; even Republican strategist Rich Galen even states that, “less than half the electorate considered Palin an important factor.” Regardless of whom he selected as the Vice Presidential nominee, McCain was in a hole that was not possible to dig out of. No Republican seemed destined to win in this election. Also, I think the suspension of his campaign, on paper, looked like a good one. McCain was trying to show to potential voters that he was deeply concerned about the economy, and was working hard to produce a solution. Unfortunately for McCain, this idea did not weigh over well with voters and Democrats deemed him “erratic” for his decision. One aspect of the article that I did agree with was the extremely biased media coverage focused on Obama throughout the election. With news stations constantly centering their attention on Obama’s success, it left McCain with little room to battle back. What I do question regarding John McCain’s campaign is why he never confronted Obama regarding some of the problematic relations he had had in the past. For example, McCain never shed light on Obama’s association with the radical pastor Jeremiah Wright. When I look back at his election, McCain did struggle to promote a convincing slogan and did falter when it came to economic issues; however the George W. Bush factor and Obama’s near flawless campaign ($640 million budget) I feel made it near impossible for McCain to win in 2008.


http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-11-05-mccain-how-he-lost_N.htm

A Few Post Election Thoughts

After the election, the distribution of house seats and senate seats changed. What does this change mean? The post election national government is dominated by democratic representatives, democratic senators, and of course a democratic president. This domination of the house and the senate would not be all that interesting if not for the fact it happened in one election. This change shows the nations dissatisfaction with the Bush administration. Bush’s poor job as president has cost the Republican Party the nation’s trust and support. The disturbance in the economy also harmed the Republican Party. People want regulation after what occurred with the financial giants. Businesses cannot be trusted to act on their own because they will not look out for what is good for the general population. Democrats are the party for regulation. Is it bad for democracy to not have a 50/50 divide in the senate and house? I believe that it is because people need their ideas to be challenged so that only the good ones move on. However, I do see the advantages to having a house and senate leaning toward one direction. In a 50/50 senate and house, some ideas may not get passed because no decisive agreement can be made.

Link:http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/11/a_few_postelection_thoughts.html

GOP Defeat

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122602069899307269.html#articleTabs%3Darticle

In this article, Laura Meckler uses hindsight to begin dissecting Senator John McCain’s strategy to figure out why he was defeated. I found it interesting because in class we said that many Republicans would blame the loss on McCain’s breaks with Republicans, but this article takes the opposite approach. We have also discussed McCain’s unclear message and this explains how his initial image as a ‘maverick’ was blurred in order to try to appeal to the conservative voters that make up the base of the Republican Party. McCain’s message needed to be consistent and credible. I think that there will be criticism from both sides of his party. The conservatives will say that he was too bipartisan, while the moderate Republicans will claim that he ran as too conservative. Basically, Senator McCain did not stick to one side. He took the middle-of-the-road position and got hit by the metaphorical truck.

The article points out that McCain simply did not emphasize his differences from the Republican Party enough. This goes along with the message box from the “Crafting your Campaign’s Message” chapter. McCain had these points about himself but his message did not “zero-in” on them as strengths. His choice of Governor Palin over Senator Joe Lieberman was intended to please conservatives and it turned away many independent voters that the once Democratic Senator may have gained. McCain knew that he needed the Republican base to win and that turning them off would lose the election. This put McCain in a tight position and explains why his message was wavering.

Michigan

I believe the state of Michigan will favor Obama in the upcoming election for several reasons. First, the recent history of Michigan voters in presidential elections suggests a trend that should continue. Secondly, the current state of the economy and housing market, which affects the state of Michigan harder than most others in the union, has shed a negative light on the GOP and many citizens are looking for a change in administration. Finally, current congressional and senate races can be looked at in order to receive some clues or insight on the presidential election.
First off, the state of Michigan (according to the Pew Forum) is 49% Democratic or Democratic leaning compared to 33% Republican and 11% Independent. Over recent the recent history of presidential elections (since 1992), Michigan has voted for the Democratic candidate for President by an average of 7.5%. Given the current state of America right now, I just don’t see any reason why this liberal trend would not continue, given the far left policies proposed by Obama. In the 2004 congressional race most districts in Michigan voted for GOP candidates, and after the economic crisis and the troubles that Michigan’s auto industry has experienced, many citizens may buck that in favor of change.
The second significant factor in trying to determine who will win Michigan in the 2008 election is examining how the current financial crisis and ongoing credit crunch affects Michigan. One of the reasons Michigan thrived earlier in the century is one of the reasons for the state currently holding the highest unemployment rate in the nation; the auto industry. Thousands of auto workers in Michigan have been laid off because of cutbacks in production, outsourced jobs, and overall lower profits for GM and Ford. This has negatively affected many families’ abilities to pay their mortgage (perhaps a sub-prime one), causing them to sell their house at a lower price than they bought it or foreclose. Michigan’s major cities such as Detroit and Flint have witnessed many foreclosures and have continually deteriorated since the 1990s (perhaps one of the reasons for voting Democratic over the past 12 years). Many of Obama’s policies, such as “redistributing wealth”, sound appealing to the constituents of Michigan who are just looking for a little change for the better.
Finally, we can examine the current polls in senate races and the presidential race to see if that could give us a hint at where the state is leaning. In the 2006 senate election the Democratic candidate won by 16%. The 2008 Michigan senate polls (RCP average) show that the Democratic candidate is going to win by a margin of 27%. According the Rasmussen poll of 500 likely voters Obama holds 16% lead over McCain and the RCP average has Obama leading by a percentage point less than that.
My final answer, in a sense, is that Obama will win the state of Michigan rather easily. I am going to predict that he wins by about 12%. I am estimating a lower percentage than most polls because I really believe that many of the younger voters and potentially the race factor may make the election closer in some areas, perhaps Michigan is one.

Who will win the following state?

In each of the battleground states, which candidate will win and by how much? On what logic and evidence did you base your prediction?

When I make my predictions, I start with some objective criteria. I begin by estimating the vote in each state without considering the candidates or the campaign. How should a generic Republican do against a generic Democrat in this particular political climate? Then I add the candidates and their campaigns to the mix.

What you do not want to do is start by looking at the current poll numbers. That is not an explanation. These numbers do give you some indication on how effective their campaigns have been in that state, so you can use it to help you estimate the final numbers.

McCain strategy not hitting home with voters, polls suggest

McCain's Joe the Plummer strategy at the debate didn't seem to hit with voters at home. Research showed that only 80% of Missouri voters had even heard of Joe the plumber. Only 8% said they would vote for McCain because of this and 3% for Obama. While the rest were not affected by his story. McCain needs to look for a new strategy to gain voters because as time goes on, more and more people are unaffected by McCain's attacks on Obama. Studies show that not many people care about Obama's relationship with Ayers. It seems unimportant because Obama was so young at the time. I think it is time for McCain to stop campaigning against Obama and start campaigning for himself. He needs to find a new strategy for gaining support while playing a fair race. What should McCain's new strategy be?

article: http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/

Obama Hasn't Closed the Sale

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122411909182439021.html

This article outlines the important campaign tactics that each candidate will focus on in the next few weeks. It goes over the advantages and disadvantages that each candidate has over the other, and although the title seems to say that Obama is not already too far ahead, it is not exactly encouraging for the McCain campaign. Like many other articles in the news today, it says that McCain has some catching up to do, and his campaign faces a difficult challenge. The debate last showed us the confidence Obama had when sitting next to McCain, who resorted to sarcastic attacks while Obama kept his cool and certainly appeared to think he had it in the bag. The article outlines a weakness of Obama's that I think is McCain's best chance at winning the election - plans for the economy. Obama has not shown us any of his black and white plans to help fix the economy, and people have paid attention to this. If McCain can stick to clear policy proposals that appeal to voters, he can stand to gain a lot of ground. It's no secret that the focus of this election is now on the economy.

This recent article in the Wall Street Journal explains Pakistan’s actions in turning to “strong ally and friend” China for financial help. Pakistan’s near bankrupt country has been hit hard by the recent global financial crisis and is now reaching out to other countries including China (as aforementioned), Saudi Arabia, and the United Kingdom. It is interesting to see that Pakistan, considered an important American ally, has not whole-heartedly sought after the United States for such financial help. Pakistan’s ties with the U.S. certainly remain “fraught with tension” but is Pakistan’s reaching out to China, rather than the United States for help, a sign of the times to come? The president of Pakistan is quoted on saying simply, “China is the future of the world.” The question raised here is, with China quickly rising to a world power, if not the strongest world power, what will be the fate of the United States in terms of global impact? Will we take a second seat to China and lose industry as a result, or will something be done to help support and stabilize America as the world’s most powerful country? With China suspect to helping Pakistan recently develop nuclear weapons, what kind of world will we be living in with China as the new superpower?

Here is the link
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122400985382133155.html

Don't Call It A 'Comeback'

It is clear that news sources are not supposed to show a bias to one political party over another, but every news source is drawn to a story. The current story after a McCain rally in VA is that he is “making a comeback.” McCain’s advisors are going with this idea, saying that this underdog from the past few weeks is going to come from behind and surprise everyone. If this were to happen, McCain would have to do a few things. One, he would have to swing the older white male demographic, who have gone more-so towards Obama because of the recent economic crisis. Also, he would have to win a majority of the “undecideds,” as well as the battleground states that Bush won in ’04. One, do you think this campaign method is effective, or will drive more people to the democratic party? Or is this election a lot closer than how the media is portraying and the polls will be neck and neck?

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/14/don-t-call-it-a-comeback.aspx

Is Era of Dominance Over for Conservatives?

The article I read from Real Clear Politics discussed how the Republican era within the United States is possibly coming to an end. It was also noted in the article that even last week in National Review; Michael Barone was quoted saying, “Are we looking at another inflection point today?” It truly seems as if a different era of politics is in the near future. With the current condition of our economy, and the ongoing situation in Iraq, many Americans believe that Republicans put us in this situation and are therefore looking for significant change. By initially not supporting the financial bailout, Republicans seem to be offering no other means of solution to the underlying problem, and Americans want a winning resolution now. In my opinion, I feel Republicans did dig themselves in a deeper hole by not initially supporting the bailout. Although it is against many conservative core values, American voters want a tangible answer and correction to our fragile economy and Democrats seem to be offering that with this bailout plan. Are there still hopes that Republicans can turn this entire economic crisis into something that can benefit them in the election? Or is the extreme dislike of the Bush administration and the idea that the Republican “ideology got us into this mess” going to ultimately decide the election in 2008. In my opinion, the average American voter wants change and a way to move past the current administration, something the Republicans have had difficulty in promoting thus far.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/06/us/politics/06caucus.html?_r=2&ei=5070&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&emc=eta1&adxnnlx=1223294803-IQ1K6xueNKy5zCE+8NnMsg&oref=slogin

Panic engulfs global stock markets

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=081006110653.q6nnqf0d&show_article=1

The article gives an overview of how the recent turmoil in the financial markets is not limited to America. The stock market recently dropped below 10,000 for the first time in four years. Analysts say that the main reason for this has been a recent drop in world markets, which is also being perpetuated by the recent weeks of turmoil in the American markets. Relating this issue back politics, my question lies in which candidate would not be the most effective in calming the nerves of American investors, but which would be the more effective person to help calm the foreign markets? For example, this could be achieved either through which candidate is perceived "better" by foreigners, or who has a stronger foreign economic plan.

Lessons Taught By FDR

Click Here

If Obama is going to put confidence back into the public, he is going to have to start making plans that are going to help the economy. In the debate, he failed to give a valid answer to the economic woes. The American public is looking for answers. We are in a new era now. Things will not be the same as they were prior to the failure of the corporate giants. The nation needs a president who can function in this new era. Who is the person for the job? It is a tough question to answer. With the bailout being such a controversial issue, the candidates are not willing to take a pertinent stance. Obama should not have backed the Bush administration’s bailout plan because it restricts Obama’s freedom to act. The nation wants to see a person who can come up with answers. The nation wants a person who can make the answer not just agree with someone else.

McCain Abandons His Efforts to Win Michigan

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/us/politics/03michigan.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

This article was very interesting to me because it shows how important the economy is to the presidential election and the candidate’s campaigning strategies. For instance, previously, McCain said how important Michigan was to the election, but now he is not campaigning there at all. The article mentions “Mr. McCain’s somewhat unsteady response to” the financial crisis. If this is how the general public views his response, it could seriously affect his chance at the presidency.

I’m curious if the McCain campaign will really stop all advertising in Michigan. I wonder what effect this strategy will have on the Republicans in Michigan. Will Obama win the state? How much of Obama’s funds will be redirected away from Michigan?

The Economy

http://www.realclearmarkets.com/printpage/url=http://www.realclearmarkets.com/articles/2020/09/a_crisis_resists_the_usual_rem.html

With the economy at the front burner, the candidates are going to have to present their position. The disasters that have ravaged the economy have thrown politicians a curve ball. Uncertainty surrounds what should and should not be done. America is divided on the topic of the government intervention. Obama and McCain are going to have to speak clearly and precisely on how they intend on fixing the market. Is the market fixable by the government? Do Obama and/or McCain have the required experience in the economy to fix it?

Conservatives Viewed Bailout As Last Straw

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/27/business/27repubs.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

This article talks about the Republican party's reluctance about passing the $700 billion bill proposed by George Bush. Instead of passing Bush's plan, the Republican party wants to look into alternative ways of alleviating the financial crisis. The Republican's do see however, that something needs to be done. As Jeb Hensarling of Texas said, "You were being asked to choose between financial meltdown on the one hand and taxpayer bankruptcy and the road to socialism on the other and you were told do it in 24 hours...It was just never going to happen.'' According to the article, Republicans recognize that the potential failure of the plan would be attributed to them. This is why they [the Republicans] wanted to make it very clear that they want to see government intervention, but different from the one currently proposed by the White House. This has created a lot of tension between the members of the Republican party, sparking many arguments between them. What I think is interesting about this situation as a whole is that we are seeing that the Republucans are not siding with the President because they realize he is trying to get this bill passed "on his way out of the White House." No matter what plan they come up with, I am conviced that there will be a bailout of some sort nontheless.

Debate Winner

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/

This article shows the campaign ads of both Obama and McCain post debate and shows their different approaches and how they were trying to spin the debate. Obama's campaign ad was saying that McCain never mentioned the middle class once during the whole debate. McCain's campaign ad shows various clips where Obama is agreeing with McCain on one subject matter or another. McCain also tried to emphasize his experience whereas Obama emphasized change. The article mentions that one of Obama's goals for the debate was to link McCain to Bush in terms of economic policy so people will be put off by that. I don't know how successful Obama was in creating this link, but I think it is a good strategy because people are clearly displeased with how the economy has turned out under the Bush administration. McCain is generally not that great of a public speaker, but I think the debate was his best public appearance so far. He looked composed and did a good job speaking, which is very good for him because he does not want the image of a poor public speaker. A president should always seem knowledgeable and confident while speaking in public and I think McCain's showing at the debate definitely helped him in that regard. The ultimate question is who really "won" the debate? I think McCain's stronger than usual speaking and his ad repeatedly showing Obama agreeing with his points makes him seem like he might have a leg up over Obama. Also, though both candidates had about equal speaking time, McCain seemed to dominate most of the conversation. I am wondering now if this recent debate will significantly change the polls one way or another or not.

First Debate

http://www.suntimes.com/news/commentary/1188934,CST-EDT-edit28.article

I read a piece of commentary on the first presidential debate that took place on Friday night. The author points out that this debate is what American politics are all about. There were relatively few scripted zingers and most of the debate contained good substance and allowed viewers to gain valuable insight. After watching the debate I felt that both candidates did well and each had their good moments and bad. However, the true value of this debate was the chance to see some true differences bewtween the candidates. Not universal differneces such as healthcare and the war in Iraq, but differences in opinion on how to handle Iran and other foreign policy issues that do not garner much air time. Another interesting difference that the author points out is how each candidate would alter their plans because of the $700 billion bailout. Interestingly McCain called for a freeze on all programs except for those that are vital. Obama also said spending needs to be reigned in but woudn't want to sacrifice early childhood education programs. I believe this a real fundamental difference between the two candidates and is something that we could see the effects of once either candidate takes office. Would a spending freeze on all programs except those that are considered vital be a benefitial move? And does Obama really think that early childhood education is going to take precedence over other critical programs such as national defense, social security, etc?

Palin Qualified?

I did my assignment on an article called “Is plain qualified, Obama not saying” from the New York Times. It talked about how Obama wouldn’t comment on Plain’s experience he would “let the American people decide. I think this is a very good move by Obama because this is a place he doesn’t even need to waste time criticizing Palin because so many people are already doing it for him. Republicans and Democrats are both constantly raising questions about her experience on TV and in debates. People are bombarded so much with this experience question that there is no reason for Obama to attack her more. The question the interviewer asked really even highlighted how inexperienced Palin was. He asked, “Sarah Palin claimed in an interview that Alaska’s proximity to Russia somehow enhances her foreign policy experience and credentials. Do you agree with that?”. It is laughable to me that she could even say that, and I’m sure many other Americans feel the same way. I think he is trying to come off as an even classier candidate because he doesn’t need to resort to smear tactics for this part of the campaign. This could attract many voters who have noticed the questionable tactics used by John McCain. He also turned the argument to McCain, stating that he was the one who was going to be in charge if elected, not Palin. This is where we have to bring the campaign back to, because in reality it is almost all about the Obama and McCain; Palin is really almost becoming a distraction to the real issues.

McCain and Mikheil: a Dangerous Relationship? Nice Try, But That Ain't Gonna Work...

Why Realists are Worried About McCain
The article explains in detail the close friendship of John McCain and Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvilli, from when they first met at a gathering in Washington in 1995 through the Georgian-Russian war this past summer, in which Saakashvilli called McCain on a daily basis for support and guidance. The article attempts to argue that this relationship could be detrimental to the United States' foreign policy decisions in a McCain-led administration. The author claims that this friendship could cloud his judgment, and even cites an official as saying "When you personalize these issues, you lose sight of some more basic national interests" to convey the message that John would not be acting in ways that would best serve the US as a result.
I find this entire argument quite laughable.
First, the fact that McCain knows and gets along with the leader of our most fervent ally should only be seen as a positive. At a time when the United States needs all the allies it can get, how can a candidate that would immediately solidify a relationship with such a crucial allied nation not be seen as a plus? That McCain already knows and converses regularly with world leaders can only make him more qualified to handle our nation's foreign policy affairs.
Second, just because they are longtime friends, McCain will not blindly follow Saakashvilli's words. The article also details the story of how when Saakashvilli won the election to become Georgia's president, the incumbent refused to relinquish his seat. John McCain called up the incumbent, who was also a good friend at the time, to demand that he step down from office. The author also explains that last November, when Saakashvilli ordered a crackdown on an opposition TV station, McCain called and demanded that "all freedoms [be] restored" immediately. These two events show that McCain will not let friendships get in the way of his personal convictions, which is something I admire in a politician.

Let her fight.

"Pact on Debates Will Let McCain and Obama Spar"The article talks about the agreements made between both the Obama campaign and the McCain campaign about the structure of both the presidential and vice presidential debates. The Vice Presidential debate is what really interested me within the article. Palin advisors wanted less open discussion and more direct questions which will limit the interaction between the candidates themselves. After watching her RNC speech, I see no problem with letting her and Biden spar. From previous readings on Palin it seems intimidation is her strongest trait. It seems that the McCain camp will only talk about the “Executive” experience of Palin when it benefits his choice for picking Palin; then when the Debate commission wants to set up a fair and informative debate, the McCain campaign states that Palin is a rookie debater. Let her attack Biden, see if she can keep up with the senior members of Washington. We saw other governor’s debate throughout the primaries; there were no special privileges for them. Will foreign leaders ask only direct questions? Negotiates and communication are a key parts of diplomacy, and the debate is a long standing part of the political process. Should debates be modified because particular candidates don’t feel comfortable in them? Does good debating represent good negotiations and leadership, or does it simply mean you can memorize prepared answers to be rattled off? It seems to me that the role of President or even Vice President might be filled with new uncomfortable situations. Will Joe Biden really be the most intimidating force the Vice President will face? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/21/us/politics/21debate.html?_r=1&ref=politics&oref=slogin

America's Stress Test

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinions/2008/09/21/2008-09-21_americas_stress_test.html

The article is about McCain and Obama's reaction towards the recent Wall Street Crisis. the article notes that neither were prepared for this crisis,even though the economy has been in such bad shape for at least a year now. The article brings up the strong complaint that if they don't know how to react now, how will it be when either is elected President. This is a frightening thing to think about. After seeing how both candidates reacted, it is hard to say which is ready to react as a President and not just stand up and be able to talk their way out of everything. The article brings up the idea of McCain and Obama running "shallow" campaigns. Neither could react to the economy's problems and they are afraid to lose votes by saying the wrong things. This article brings up the reality that neither candidate is fit for dealing with a crisis and with our current economy, a crisis is never too far away.

Time for a GOP Panic?

My Article is from The American Spectator.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=13921

The article describes how the polls are showing more of a lead by the Democrats in the recent week or so. When Palin was first nominated for Vice President, GOP ratings went up causing the Democrats to get worried. However, after Palin's interview with Charlie Gibson and Obama's recent attacks with his TV ads, the Republicans have lost that lead. "Palin's approval numbers took a nosedive, going from 52% positive to 41% positive in the space of eight days, while her negatives ratings rose from 35% to 46%."
I find this article interesting because it kind of describes how the presidential race is never clearly in favor of one candidate. It varies week-by-week. One week Obama may be ahead, while the next McCain may be. The media plays a huge role because of their biases and the clips that they choose to show. While for this week Palin may be the victim, with the upcoming presidential debate, the next victim may be Obama, especially if foreign policy becomes a hot topic. Either way, it shows that neither party should never be comfortable in their position and it's always good to stay on edge. This is the reason why some people find politics to be entertainment in itself.

Welcome

Hello and welcome to our class blog. Here, you will find numerous examples of insightful and critical commentary on the news of the day from students in Bentley College's Honors section of Introduction to American Government (GO100H). I look forward to reading all of your posts and comments.